single  Tax  Exposed 

By 

Charles  H,  Shields 

SINGLE  TAX 
EXPOSED 


BY 

CHARLES  H.  SHIELDS 

Secretary  Oregon  Equal  Taxation  Lea«[ue 


DD 
D 


Shall  Oregon  Be  the  Vidtim  on  Which 

Joseph  Fels  Would  Try  Out  the 

Fallacies  of  Single  Tax 

? 

Oregon  Awaken 


SINGLE  TAX 
EXPOSED 


AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE  OPERATION  OF  THE  SIN- 
GLE TAX  SYSTEM  AS  PROPOSED  BY  HENRY 
GEORGE  IN  "PROGRESS  AND  POVERTY," 
THE  BOOK  FROM  WHICH  ALL  SINGLE  TAX 
ADVOCATES  DRAW  THEIR  INSPIRATION.  RE- 
VEALING THE  TRUE  AND  REAL  MEANING 
OF  SINGLE  TAX,  WHICH  IS  LAND  COMMUNISM 


BY 
CHARLES  H.  SHIELDS 

Secretary  Oregon  Equal  Taxation  League 

and 

Head  of  the  Anti-Single  Tax  League 

of  Washington 


19  12 


5f.^^ 


en 


SINGLE  TAX  EXPOSED 

THIRD  EDITION 


37076! 


Wr  AN  is  a  social  as  well  as  a 
land  animal.    Land  there- 
fore is  no  greater  factor  for  the 
good  of  man  than  the  com- 
bined  elements  which  consti- 
tute the  social   structure  in 
which  he  has  his  being.  ^  ^ 

Contents 


Chapter                                                                                Page 
I.     Progress  and  Poverty  by  Henry  George 9 

II.  Single  Tax  and  How  It  Wilt.  Operate 19 

III.  Confiscation  of  Private  Property  in  Land.  .  .31 

IV.  Repidiation  of  Private  CoxNtracts 35 

V.  Prinate  Appropriation  of  the  Soil 41 

\I.     All      Property      of      Exchang.eable      Value 

Should  Be  Taxed 53 

\1I.     The  Dog-in-the-]Manger  Cry  of  the   Single 
Tax  Advocates 61 

\TII.     Single  Tax   Unjlst,   Unreasonable  and   In- 
consistent   67 

IX.     The  Single  Taxers  Cry  "Land  Monopoly".  . .  .77 

X.     How  Single  Tax  Would  Bar  Public  Lmprom:- 

MENTS   !^  1 

XI.     \^\NcouvER,  B.  C,  Has  Xot  Single  Tax     85 


SINGLE  TAX  EXPOSED 


CHAPTER  I. 


PROGRESS  AND  POVERTY  BY  HENRY  GEORGE 
OBJECTS  OF  THE  AUTHOR 


About  forty  years  ago  Henry  George,  then  a  news 
correspondent,  conceived  the  idea  that  the  unequal  dis- 
tribution of  wealth  could  be  traced  to  no  other  cause  than 
that  of  private  ownership  of  land.  Being  of  a  benevolent 
nature  and  having  a  burning  desire  to  extirpate  pauperism 
and  poverty,  which  indeed  is  a  noble  spirit,  he  began  his 
study  and  Avritings  on  economic  and  social  conditions,  rea- 
soning always  that  the  source  of  all  the  ills  so  apparent  in 
society  was  that  of  private  ownership  of  land.  He  wrote 
many  books  dealing  with  this  subject  which  received 
more  or  less  attention  from  the  reading  public,  and  espe- 
cially from  the  laboring  class  of  people.  The  climax  of 
his  efforts  along  this  line  of  thought  was  reached  when  he 
wrote  "Progress  and  Poverty."  Perhaps  no  other  book 
on  social  or  political  economy  received  so  much  attention 
throughout  the  world  as  "Progress  and  Poverty."  In 
this  book  was  culminated  his  s.ystem  known  as  Single  Tax, 
meaning  that  all  other  forms  of  taxes  direct  or  indirect, 
shall  be  abolished  save  that  of  a  tax  on  land.  By  this 
system  of  Single  or  Land  Tax,  he  reasoned,  and  Ave  will 
concede  that  he  reasoned  Avell,  that  the  burden  of  taxes 
when  resting  entirely  upon  land,  would  be  too  great  for 
individuals  to  own  the  land  and  that  it  would  eventually 
revert  to  the  Government  or  society  from  which  it  had 
been  wrongfully  taken;  that  under  such  conditions,  i.e. 
the  Government  owning  the  land,  and  the  people  the 
tenants,  the  present  ills  of  society  would  disappear,  inas- 
much as  the  cause  had  V)eeii  destroved.     He  further  rea- 


Extlrpation  of  pau- 
persism  his  ob- 
ject 


Cause  of  pauper- 
ism private  own- 
ership of  land 


Burden  of  taxes 
too  great  for 
land 


Land     reverts     to 
Government 


10 


SIXfiLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


Bead  by  all  classes 


Idea  novel 


His  system  to  reg- 
ulate mental  in- 
equalities 


Condemned  by 
economists 


Appealed   to    emo- 
tion 


Reasoning  unsound 


soned  that  poverty  and  wealth  would  blend,  even  want, 
misery  and  crime  would  be  no  more. 

The  book  in  a  few  years  after  its  publication  caused 
a  great  stir  throughout  both  the  new  and  old  worlds. 
There  was  a  great  demand  for  it.  People  in  all  walks  of 
life  read  with  much  interest  this  most  novel  and  peculiar 
scheme  for  relieving  society  of  the  many  irregularities  that 
then  existed.  3Ir.  George  even  goes  so  far  as  to  figure 
that  the  abolition  of  the  private  ownership  of  land  will 
regulate  the  physical  ills  of  the  human  race,  that  it  would 
make  all  men  and  women  equally  mental,  and  that  it 
would  even  be  a  bar  to  improvidence.  In  other  words, 
the  abolition  of  private  property  in  land  w^ould  bring 
about  a  Millennium. 

]\Ien  of  science  and  political  economists,  however,  did 
not  regard  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  George  as  sound  or 
honest.  As  the  latter  is  one  of  the  cornerstones  on  which 
good  government  must  rest,  the  book  therefore  did  not 
receive  the  support  of  the  reasoning  and  logical  thinking 
people  of  any  country.  It  did,  however,  appeal  very 
strongly  to  the  emotional  and  sympathetic  side  of  life, 
and  on  this  account  found  many  ardent  supporters  who 
appreciated  the  work  for  the  object  and  purposes  at  which 
it  aimed.  One  thing  was  certain  in  Mr.  George,  tlie  poor 
man,  the  laboring  man,  had  at  least  found  a  friend ;  one 
who  was  trying  to  relieve  their  condition;  whether  his 
juethod  was  good  and  his  logic  sound  was  not  a  serious 
(juestion  for  their  consideration;  it  was  the  intent  of  the 
man.  As  before  stated,  the  object  of  ^Mr.  George  was  the 
extermination  of  pauperism.  Logic  and  reason  here  gave 
way  to  emotion. 

I  want  to  warn  my  readers  that  this  is  a  failing  too 
often  indulged  in — one  which  often  leads  to  confusion 
and  disorder.  Reason  is  the  highest  attainment  of  organic 
evolution  and  should  always  be  on  the  throne.  Emotions 
are  dangerous  and  should  always  be  held  in  subjection  to 
that  of  reason. 

The  following  of  j\Ir.  George  and  his  peculiar  doctrine 
f'rew  until   a1)out  1886  when  the  fever  began  to  snliside. 


I'ROGUESS    AM)    POVERTY    BY    HENRY    GEORGE 


11 


In  this  year  Mr.  George  ran  for  mayor  of  the  City  of  New 
York  and  was  defeated  presumably  on  account  of  his 
Single  Tax  theories. 

For  many  years  after  his  defeat  for  mayor  of  New 
York  but  little  was  heard  of  the  Single  Tax  doctrine.  It 
had  been  so  universally  condemned  as  unsound,  unjust 
and  so  revolutionary  iii  its  character,  that  only  a  few 
fanatics  heid  to  the  doctrine. 

Some  five  or  six  years  ago  one  Joseph  Fels,  a  multi- 
millionaire soap  manufacturer  of  Philadelphia,  became  in- 
fatuated with  the  Henry  George  doctrine  of  Single  Tax. 
In  fact,  IMr.  Fels  holds  it  as  a  religion,  and  became  so 
wrapped  up  in  this  peculiar  system  of  taxation  that  he 
decided  to  spend  a  few  of  his  accumulated  millions  in 
promoting  this  system  (and  at  the  same  time  advertising 
his  soap).  He  therefore  organized  a  commission  known 
as  the  Joseph  Fels  Fund  Commission  of  America.  This 
Commission  was  to  handle  his  contributions  (which  were 
to  duplicate  the  contributions  of  others)  and  to  direct  a 
campaign  in  such  states  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  Com- 
mission would  be  most  likely  to  experiment  with  Single 
Tax  idea^,  and  where  the  statutes  and  constitutions  could 
most  easily  be  changed  to  suit  the  situation. 


Defeat    of    Henry 
George 


Single    Tax    fever 
subsides 


Fels  infatuated 


Fels     spends     his 
millions 


To  change  Statutes 
for    Single    Tax 


BEST  OF  MEN  HIRED. 

This  Commission  employed  the  most  able  men  that 
money  could  secure,  men  versed  in  the  art  of  politics, 
men  who  as  the  Commission  say,  "were  on  to  their  job," 
men  who  could  be  trusted  to  cunningly  devise  and  work 
out  plans  for  Single  Tax  which  could  be  disguised  and 
which  would  cause  the  least  resistance  in  the  community 
or  state  in  wdiich  such  work  was  undertaken. 


OREGON  SELECTED  AS  THE  VICTIM. 

For  reasons  which  have  not  yet  been  made  known, 
Oregon  was  selected  as  the  victim  on  which  Joseph  Fels, 
through  his  Commission,  was  to  try  out  the  fallacies  of 
the  Single  Tax  theory,— the  Henry  George  scheme  of  so- 
called  tax  reform  which  the  author  claimed  when  once  in 


12 


SI-NGLh'   TAX    EXPOSED 


To  regulate  ills  of 
society 


Blend     millionaire 
and  pauper 


Single  Tax  a  theo- 
ry only 


operation,  would  do  away  with  poverty  and  pauperism,  at 
the  same  time  making  it  impossible  for  millionaires  to 
exist.  In  other  words,  that  the  abolition  of  private  prop- 
erty in  land  would  blend  poverty  and  immense  riches, 
thereby  lifting  the  pauper  and  lowering  the  millionaire, 
until  the  two  would  meet  on  a  common  plane ;  that  under 
such  a  system  all  men  and  women  would  enjoy  equal  pos- 
session of  worldly  goods ;  that  crime,  want  and  misery 
would  forever  disappear.  This  indeed  would  be  a  happy 
condition.  It  must  be  apparent  to  the  reader  that  such  a 
condition  could  exist  in  a  dream  only. 

It  would  indeed  be  a  credit  to  the  State  of  Oregon  or 
any  state  in  the  Union  to  be  the  first  to  adopt  such  a 
righteous  system  of  taxation  as  Henry  George  and  his  fol- 
lowers would  have  us  believe  Single  Tax  is.  We  will  dis- 
cuss, however,  in  the  Chapters  following  the  merits  of  this 
Single  Tax  theory — for  a  theory  it  is — as  compared  with 
the  present  system  of  taxation. 


Some  smooth  work 


Defeat       of      two 
amendments 


OREGON  FOR  SINGLE  TAX  IN  1912. 
HOW  IT  WAS  DONE. 

I  wish  first,  howc^'er,  l)efore  entering  upon  the  eco- 
nomic question  of  Single  Tax  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  some  of  the  details  in  connection  with  the  last 
state  election  in  Oregon,  at  which  time  there  were  sul)- 
mitted  to  the  voters  three  constitutional  amendments,  two 
of  which  were  defeated,  the  third  Ijeing  adopted,  that  of 
County  Home  Rule  on  Taxation,  and  whero  the  work  oP 
these  hired  emissaries  of  the  Joseph  Fels  Fund  Commis- 
sion entered  so  clearly  and  cunningly  into  the  campaign. 

At  the  last  State  election  in  Oregon  held  on  the  Sth 
of  November,  1910,  the  people  voted  down  a  proposal  to 
change  tlie  constitution,  whicl:  amendment  would  have 
omitted  from  that  instrument  the  words  ''And  all  taxa- 
tion sliall  be  (M|ual  and  uniform."  The  vote  was  37,619 
foi'  and  40.172  against  the  change.  From  the  beginning 
of  the  Kepublic  the  provision  that  taxes  shall  be  equal  and 
uniform  has  been  deemed  a  fundamental  principle  of  our 
written  constitution.     It  is  not  surprising  therefore  that 


PK0GRKS8    AND    POVERTY     BY     HFNRY    GKORCiK 


the  voters  declined  to  relinquisli  -what  has  so  long  been 
and  deemed  one  of  the  mainstays  of  onr  Government. 

At  the  same  election  another  amendment  of  similar 
purport  was  voted  upon  and  likewise  defeated.  This  also 
was  a  proposal  to  change  the  uniform  rule  of  taxation. 
The  vote  was  -SI, 629  for,  and  41.692  against. 

Both  of  these  proposed  constitutional  changes  were 
fairly  and  honestly  submitted  to  the  intelligent  judgment 
of  the  voters  by  printing  upon  the  ballot  the  titles  of  the 
proposed  acts  in  such  a  manner  as  to  clearly  indicate  that 
the  proposed  alterations  were  directed  against  the  rule  of 
uniformity  and  equality  in  taxation. 


Rule  of  uniformity 


Honestly- 
submitted 


ABOLISHING  THE  POLL  TAX. 

•But  at  the  same  election  the  people  were  called  upon 
to  vote  upon  a  third  constitutional  cliange  which  also  had 
the  effect  of  abolishing  the  rule  of  equality  and  uniformity 
in  taxation.  The  title  of  the  act  on  the  official  ballot  was 
"For  a  constitutional  amendment  pi-oviding  for  tlie  peo- 
ple of  each  county  to  regulate  taxation  and  exemptions 
within  the  county  regardless  of  constitutional  restrictions 
of  state  statutes  and  abolishing  poll  or  head  tax." 

This  measure  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  44.171  for.  and 
42.127  against. 

Now  the  curious  fact  is  that  the  state  poll  or  head 
tax  in  Oregon  had  already  been  abolished.  I  understand 
that  in  Clackamas  County  there  was  still  in  some  form  a 
road  poll  tax.  The  title  of  the  act  as  printed  on  the  ballot, 
especially  that  portion  of  it  relating  to  the  abolishment  of 
poll  tax,  gained  votes  for  the  measure  among  those  who 
opposed  such  a  tax  on  principle  but  who  did  not  know 
that  there  was  no  poll  or  head  tax  to  abolish. 

Moreover,  the  title  did  not  in  words  propose  to  strike 
out  from  the  constitution  the  words  "eciual  or  uniform" 
as  applied  to  taxation.  If  it  had.  it  must  be  presumed 
that  the  amendment  would  have  met  the  fate  at  the 
hands  of  an  intelligent  and  discriminating  electorate,  that 
attended  the  other  two.  The  amendment  was  adopted 
without  a  single  argument  having  been  printed  against 


No    poll 
abolish 


tax     to 


Objects     disguised 


Title  misleading 


14 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


No  argument 
against 


Attack  on  poll  tax 


Counties  to  experi- 
ment 


Voters  did  not  un- 
derstand 


it.  It  was  proposed  by  the  Oregon  State  Federation  of 
Labor  and  by  the  Central  Labor  Council  of  Portland  and 
vicinity,  who  jointly  signed  a  combination  argument  cov- 
ering and  advocating  the  adoption  of  this  measure  and 
two  others.  Their  argument  was  published  in  the  State 
pamphlet  issued  to  voters  by  the  Secretary  of  State. 
No  one  seems  to  have  been  sufficiently  interested  against 
this  radical  change  in  the  law  to  pay  for  a  counter 
argument,  for  none  appeared  in  the  State  publication. 
The  argument  that  Avas  printed  in  the  State  pamphlet 
in  favor  of  the  measure  was  largely  devoted  to  an  attack 
upon  the  poll  tax.  They  claimed  the  County  Home  Rule 
provision  in  the  amendment  was  very  valuable,  that  every 
county  would  be  obliged  to  pay  its  fair  share  of  the 
state  taxes,  but  that  the  people  of  the  county  may  decide 
for  themselves  how  they  will  raise  the  money  and  that 
it  would  make  no  difference  whatever  to  the  people  of 
other  counties;  different  methods  and  systems  of  taxa- 
tion and  exemption  they  reasoned  could  thus  be  tried  on 
a  small  scale  just  as  other  inventions  and  experiments 
are  first  tried  out  on  a  small  scale.  AVith  the  people  of 
every  county  studying  and  experimenting  on  this  ques- 
tion of  just  laws  for  taxation  and  exemptions,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  in  a  very  few  years  Oregon  will  develop  a  fair 
system  of  taxation  that  will  bear  equally  and  justly  on 
every  citizen.  It  should  be  obvious  to  the  reader  that 
an  ordinary  voter  at  least  would  not  detect  in  this  pro- 
posed amendment  or  in  the  arguments  for  it.  as  appeared 
in  the  state  campaign  book,  anything  that  would  suggest 
Single  Tax.  However  this  was  the  real  object  and  pur- 
pose of  the  measure,  as  will  be  clearly  proven  a  little 
further  on. 


Single     Tax 
phlet 


pam- 


In  another  pamphlet  published  at  the  expense  of 
the  Joseph  Fels  Fund  by  ^Messrs.  Cridge.  Eggleston  and 
U'Een.  and  circulated  before  the  election,  a  strong  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  all  three  of  these  amendments  was  made. 


It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  this  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution  of  Oregon  was  adopted  that  is 


PROGRESS  AND  POVERTY  BY  HENRY  GEORGE 


15 


now   relied  upon   by   the   advocates   of  the   Single   Tax 

system. 

CONCEALING  THE  SINGLE  TAX  IDEA. 

It  will  be  apparent  that  the  ballot  did  not  use  the 
words  ''Single  Tax."  Nothing  in  the  body  of  the  amend- 
ment refers  to  Single  Tax,  and  this  is  true  of  the  other 
two  amendments  that  w^ere  voted  down,  yet  the  adoption 
of  any  one  of  the  three  would  have  brought  the  same 
result,  for  all  three  were  shrewdly  designed  to  let  in 
Single  Tax,  and  it  made  little  difference  to  the  Single 
Tax  advocate  if  two  of  the  amendments  were  voted  down, 
if  the  third  were  carried.  The  measure  adopted  reads  as 
follows  : 

"Section  la.  No  poll  or  head  tax  shall  be 
levied  or  collected  in  Oregon.  No  bill  regulating 
taxation  or  exemption  throughout  the  state  shall 
become  a  law"  until  approved  by  the  people  of  the 
state  at  a  regular  general  election.  None  of  the 
restrictions  of  the  constitution  shall  apply  to 
measures  approved  by  the  people  declaring  what 
shall  be  subject  to  taxation  or  exemption  and 
how  it  shall  be  taxed  or  exempted,  whether  pro- 
posed by  the  legislative  assembly  or  by  initiative 
petition,  but  the  people  of  the  several  counties 
are  hereby  empowered  and  authorized  to  regulate 
taxation  and  exemptions  within  their  several 
counties,  subject  to  any  general  law"  which  may 
be  hereinafter  enacted." 

Under  the  amendment  none  of  the  restrictions  of  the 
constitution  shall  apply  to  tax  measures  approved  by 
the  people,  and  counties  are  empow^ered  to  regulate  taxa- 
tion and  exemptions.  The  provisions  requiring  equality 
and  uniformity  have  therefore  no  force  though  still  in 
the  constitution,  and  each  county  is  to  be  at  liberty  to 
make  a  tax  law"  to  suit  itself  and  to  change  it  at  every 
election. 

Now  I  venture  to  say  that  the  people  of  Oregon  are 
not  in  favor  of  Single  Tax,  and  they  were  not  in  favor 
of  adopting  an  amendment  that  would  allow  inequality 
in  taxation,  thereby  making  their  investments  uncertain 


One    of   the    three 
would  do 


The  bill 


Rule  of  uniformity- 
destroyed 


Ifi 


SIXGLE   TAX    KXPOSFD 


Not    the    wiU 
the  people 


of 


Single    Taxers    re- 
joice 


Renewed  activity 


Appeal  for  help 


and  unstable  l^y  the  menace  of  frequent  and  experimental 
local  changes  in  the  tax  system,  and  I  feel  justified  in 
saying  that  the  2,000  majority  for  this  measure  would 
have  utterly  disappeared  if  there  liad  Ijeen  any  apprecia- 
tion of  what  the  amendment  stood  foi'. 

The  total  vote  on  the  measure,  pro  and  con,  amounted 
to  86,298.  Tlie  highest  total  vote  at  the  election  was 
120,248.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  tliat  some  40,000  voters  did 
not  express  themselves  upon  this  important  question 
Certainly  had  the  people  of  Oregon  known  that  they 
were  voting  upon  a  question  that  stood  for  Single  Tax, 
that  stood  for  a  system  which  had  for  its  ultimate  end 
the  confiscation  of  private  property  in  land,  a  greatei 
percentage  of  voters  would  have  expressed  themselves  on 
this  important  subject. 

Doubtless  there  was  great  rejoicing  among  the  Sin- 
gle Tax  advocates,  for  the  way  seemed  open  for  the  next 
step,  that  of  imposing  the  burden  of  tax  upon  land. 
Renewed  activity  among  them  was  at  om-e  manifest. 
Supplied  with  ample  resources  through  the  Joseph  Fels 
Fund,  a  vigorous  campaign  to  capture  Oregon  for  Single 
Tax  ^^•as  at  once  opened.  The  United  States  was  flooded 
with  circulars  calling  for  money  on  the  ground  that 
Joseph  Fels  had  agreed  to  duplicate  all  contributions 
]nade  by  others  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  adoption 
of  Single  Tax  some^^■hel•e  in  the  Ignited  States  within  five 
Acars. 


Report      of      Fels 
Commission 


VICTORY   FOR   SINGLE   TAX. 

These  circulars  are  vibrant  with  the  triumph  of  the 
Oregon  victory  achieved,  and  they  forecast  the  consum- 
mation of  the  plans  two  years  before  the  time  limit  set, 
but  let  us  quote  from  the  circulai's: 

''The  P^els  Fund  Commission  began  its  work 
in  1909.  Two  of  the  five  years  have  now  passed 
which  were  allowed  to  it  to  secure  the  Single 
Tax.  Reports  of  progi'ess  have  been  sent  from 
time  to  time  to  all  supposed  to  be  iutel'ested.     AV(' 


PROGRESS  AND  POVERTY  BY  HENRY  GEORGE  17 

give  herein  a  statement  of  the  same  kind  brought 
up  to  date. 

"Oregon  has  secured  county  option  in  taxa- 
tion. This  is  the  furthest  step  in  advance  that 
any  state  in  the  Union  has  yet  succeeded  in  tak- 
ing. It  was  obtained  after  a  hard-fought  cam- 
paign which  required  a  very  large  share  of  the 
resources  at  the  command  of  the  Commission. 
Now  the  Single  Taxers  of  Oregon  are  preparing 
to  take  advantage  of  the  power  thus  gained  by 
submitting  the  question  of  adopting  the  Single 
Tax  to  the  voters  of  every  county.  They  will 
furthermore  submit  an  amendment  to  the  State 
Constitution  providing  for  state-wide  application 
of  the  principle. 

"These  questions  will  be  decided  at  the  elec- 
tion to  be  held  in  November,  1912.  Oregon  is 
getting  close  to  the  goal,  and  if  the  workers  re- 
ceive proper  assistance  and  encouragement,  will 
surely  get  there  two  years  before  the  time  limit 
set  for  the  Commission's  work  has  expired." 

These  circulars  say : 

"The  commission  has  spent  and  is  spending 
considerable  sums  in  Oregon  in  preparation  for 
and  in  prosecution  of  the  Single  Tax  battle  of 
1912.  The  same  activity  on  a  lower  financial 
scale  is  taking  place  in  Missouri." 

They  very  emphatically  say  that  the  fight  is  on,  and 
that  the  November  election  will  decide  whether  all  public 
revenues   shall   be   raised   from   land    values   exclusively.      Fight    is    on    for 

So  here  is  the  plain  issue.     It  cannot  be  palliated  or         1912 
denied.     This  time  the  voters  must  know  the  effect  of 
their  yea  and  nay.     The  generals  to  an  aggressive  or- 
ganization   (the   Fels   Fund   Commission)    have   selected 
Oregon  as  a  battlefield,  and  the  5th  of  November  as  the 
fatal   day.      Enthusiastic   in  their   cause,    they   are   sup- 
ported by  the  vast  sums  of  money  which  will  be  used  to 
supply  the  state  with  literature  full  of  specious  argument 
appealing  to  prejudice,  jealousy  and  envy,  stirring  up  the     Oregon  the  battle- 
spirit  of  unrest  and  dissatisfaction,  inflaming  passions,         field 
and  appealing  to  the  selfish. 


18 


SINGLE  TAX   EXPOSED 


U'Ren  speaks 


Would    have    been 
defeated 


Way  cleared 


HOW  W.  S.  U'REN  DISGUISED  SINGLE  TAX. 

To  further  prove  that  this  campaign  was  carried  on 
under  cover  and  that  the  true  and  real  purpose  of  the 
promoters  was  at  all  times  hidden  and  disguised  as  much 
as  possible  from  the  voters  and  taxpayers  of  Oregon,  I 
want  to  quote  the  words  of  Mr.  U'Ren  before  the  Com- 
mission at  the  Single  Tax  Conference  held  in  New  York, 
November  19  and  20,  1910,  or  at  least  this  language  from 
Mr.  U'Ren  appears  in  the  report  of  the  Commission 
dated  November  19  and  20,  1910.    He  says : 

"We  have  cleared  the  waj^  for  a  straight 
Single  Tax  fight  in  Oregon.  All  the  work  we 
have  done  for  direct  legislation  has  been  done 
with  the  Single  Tax  in  view.  But  we  have  not 
talked  Single  Tax  because  that  was  not  the  ques- 
tion before  the  house.  Now  that  question  is  be- 
fore the  house  in  Oregon  and  we  will  discuss  it  in 
that  state.  Since  we  first  began  our  work  with 
Single  Tax  as  the  goal  in  view  we  have  confined 
ourselves  to  the  questions  to  be  voted  on  at  the 
next  election.  To  do  otherwise  is  to  confuse  the 
voters." 

Mr.  U'Ren  might  have  said:  "To  do  otherwise  would 
have  exposed  the  true  purpose  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ments and  that  they  would  have  been  overwhelmingly 
defeated,"  as  the  people  would  have  fully  understood  what 
the}'  were  doing,  which  was  not  the  case  at  the  last  election. 
>\Iany  paragraphs  from  speeches  that  were  made  by  differ- 
ent adherents  of  the  single  tax  at  this  convention  could 
be  cited  which  would  give  further  evidence  of  the  design 
to  put  Oregon  on  the  Single  Tax  basis  by  not  allowing 
people  to  know  that  they  were  preparing  the  way  for 
straight  Single  Tax  in  1912.  Under  the  direction  of  Mr. 
U'Ren,  according  to  the  Commissioner's  Report  of  1910, 
there  was  expended  in  the  State  of  Oregon  for  the  year 
ending  1910,  $16,775.  Enough  has  been  said  to  put  at 
rest  any  question  in  the  mind  of  the  reader,  that  Oregon 
has  been  the  victim  of  the  designing  men  hired  by  the 
Joseph  Fels  Fund  Commission  to  sliape  conditions  in  the 
State  of  Oregon  for  straight  Single  Tax,  before  the  end 
of  1912.  It  has  been  one  of  the  smoothest  pieces  of  politi- 
cal work  in  the  United  States  of  which  we  have  a  record. 


CHAPTER  II. 

SINGLE  TAX  AND  HOW  IT  WILL  OPERATE.   A  TRUE 
AND  REAL  ANALYSIS  OF  WHAT  IT  MEANS. 


IT  MEANS— 

The  confiscation  of  private  property  in  land. 

IT  MEANS  — 

Talcing,  by  process  of  taxation,  all  the  rental  value 
of  land. 

IT  MEANS— 

The  annihilation  of  the  selling  value  of  land. 

IT  MEANS— 

The  destruction  of  the  foundation  on  which  a  very 
large  proportion  of  our  business  rests. 

It  is  a  great  step  towards  the  end  of  our  present 
social  and  fiscal  system. 

That  you  may  not  be  deceived  of  its  true  meaning, 
we  quote  below  extracts  from  "Progress  and  Poverty" 
by  Henry  George,  from  which  the  Single  Tax  movement 
and  all  of  the  Single  Tax  advocates  draw  their  inspira- 
tion. 

Speaking  of  private  ownership  of  land,  on  page  856. 
Henry  George  says : 

"The  truth  is  and  from  this  truth  there  can  be 
no  escape,  that  there  is  and  can  be  no  JUST 
TITLE  to  an  exclusive  possession  of  the  soil, 
and  that  private  property  in  land  is  a  bold,  bare 
enormous  wrong,  like  that  of  chattel  slavery." 

Again,  he  says,  on  page  H63 : 

"If  the  land  belongs  to  the  people,  why  con- 
tinue to  permit  LAND  OWNERS  to  take  the 
RENT,  or  COMPENSATE  them  in  ANY  ]\IAN- 
XER  for  the  loss  of  rent?" 


20 


SINGLE   TAX   EXPOSED 


AJJ  land  to  i«vert 
to  the  state 


The  section  above  referred  to  is  directed  against 
every  land  owner.  It  is  directed  against  YOU.  It  makes 
no  difference  whether  you  have  25  feet  frontage  on  Stark 
street  in  Portland,  or  whether  you  have  160  acres  in  the 
Willamette  Valley,  or  whether  you  own  unlimited  acres 
of  timber  land  in  Coos  County.  There  is  no  discrimina- 
tion between  land  owners.  The  intention  is  that  all  land- 
owners must  be  treated  alike  and  that  their  lands  must 
revert  back  to  society  by  the  process  of  the  Single  Tax 
System. 

Again  on  Page  395,  Title  to  Chapter  1 : 

"Private  Property  in  Land  is  INCONSISTF.NT 
with  the  Best  Use  of  LAND." 


Again,  on  Page  401,  Chapter  2. 

"How  equal  rights  to  the  land  may  be  asserted 
and  secured. ' ' 


Land  values  to  fall 


On  Page  434,  in  speaking  of  the  decline  or  fall  in 
land  values,  he  says: 

"The  selling  price  of  land  would  fall;  land 
speculation  would  receive  its  death  blow. ' ' 


Price   of   city  lots 

to  fall 


That  means  you,  home  owners,  you  widows,  who  per- 
haps have  struggled  hard  to  make  payments  on  your  lots 
or  your  homestead,  and  have  now  just  about  completed 
them  so  that  you  feel  that  you  have  a  real  value  in  your 
home,  or  your  farm;  under  the  operation  of  Single  Tax 
this  is  swept  away,  given  back  to  society  by  the  process 
of  this  innocent  cure-all  tax  reform  Single  Tax. 

Again,  on  Page  446,  in  speaking  of  land  values,  he 
confirms  positively  that  land  values  will  be  diminished — 
theoretically,  that  they  will  disappear.     He  says : 

"The  selling  value  of  his  lot  will  diminish — 
theoretically  it  will  entirely  disappear.  But  its 
usefulness  to  him  will  not  disappear.  It  will 
serve  his  purpose  as  well  as  ever.  While,  as 
the  value  of  all  other  lots  will  diminish  or 
disappear  in  the  same  ratio  he  retains  the  same 
security  of  always  having  a  lot  that  he  had  be- 


SINGLE  TAX   AND   HOW  IT   WILL  OPEBATK 


21 


fore.     .     .     .    His  only  loss  will  be  if  he  wants 
to  sell  his  lot  without  getting  another. ' ' 

Do  you  home  owners  want  such  a  condition  as  above 
named,  i.  e.,  that  the  selling  value  of  your  lots  will  entirely 
disappear,  as  it  certainly  will  under  this  Single  Tax  Sys- 
tem? You  may  want  to  move  to  some  other  city,  or  to 
some  other  part  of  the  city  or  to  convert  your  lot  into  a 
homestead  or  to  convert  your  homestead  or  perhaps  your 
farm  into  city  lots.  Henry  George  says  the  selling  value 
of  your  land  will  have  disappeared  under  Single  Tax. 

Mr.  George  certainly  is  right  and  his  reasoning  is 
good  when  he  says  that  under  full  application  of  Single 
Tax  the  selling  value  of  your  land- will  disappear.  It  is 
very  apparent  that  when  the  rental  value  of  land  is  all 
taken  by  the  state,  which  is  the  meaning  of  Single  Tax, 
that  there  could  be  no  value  to  the  owner  or  individual 
w^hose  money  is  only  invested  in  articles  and  things  which 
bear  a  return  for  the  money  so  invested;  hence,  it  is  per- 
fectly natural  that  when  all  the  burden  of  taxes  is  placed 
upon  land,  its  selling  value  will  gradually  decline  until 
there  is  no  value  left  in  it  because  of  the  returns  going  to 
rhe  state  instead  of  to  the  individual. 


Again,   on  Page  326,   in  speaking  of  conditions,  he 


savs : 


"We  have  examined  all  the  remedies,  short  of 
the  abolition  of  private  property  in  land,  which 
are  currently  relied  on  or  proposed  for  the  relief 
of  poverty  and  the  better  distribution  of  wealth, 
and  have  found  them  all  INEFFICACIOUS  and 
IMPRACTICABLE.  There  is  but  ONE  way  to 
remove  an  evil — and  that  is,  to  remove  its  cause. 
.  .  .  This,  then,  is  the  remedy  for  the  unjust 
and  unequal  distribution  of  wealth  apparent  in 
modem  civilization,  and  for  all  the  evils  which 
flow  from  it. ' ' 


Home  -  owners     do 
you  want  it? 


Investments 
for  profit 


made 


"WE  MUST  MAKE  LAND  COMMON  PROPERTY." 

On  Page  360  he  shows,  without  any  question,  how  far 
the  single  tax  movement  would  go  to  take  from  indi- 
viduals their  land  without  compensation. 


22 


SINGLE    TAX    EXPOSED 


To  what  extent  he 
would  go 


A    bold    statement 


A  moral  question 


"By  the  time  the  people  of  any  such  country 
~  as  England  or  the  United  States  are  sufficiently 
aroused  to  the  injustice  and  disadvantages  of  in- 
dividual ownership  of  land  to  induce  them  to  at- 
tempt its  nationalization,  they  will  be  sufficiently 
aroused  to  nationalize  it  in  a  much  more  direct 
and  easy  way  than  by  purchase.  They  will  not 
trouble  themselves  about  compensating  the  pro- 
prietors of  land.  .  .  .  Nor  is  it  right  that 
there  should  be  any  concern  about  the  proprietors 
of  land." 

I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  last 
portion  of  the  above  quotation,  "nor  is  it  right  that  there 
should  be  any  concern  about  the  proprietors  of  land." 

This  is  certainly  a  very  bold  statement  to  be  made  by  a 
man,  a  political  economist,  who  pretends  to  have  the  best 
interests  of  the  people  and  nation  at  heart.  I  do  not 
question  his  intentions,  however.  I  simply  call  your  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  he  reasons  from  false  premises; 
that  he  ignores  the  fundamental  principle  of  government ; 
that  he  disregards  the  moral  obligation  that  the  people 
have  with  the  government  and  the  government  with  the 
people.  He  seems  to  have  not  yet  discovered  that  moral- 
ity, justice,  stability  in  laws  and  institutions  are  abso- 
lutely necessary,  in  fact,  are  the  cornerstones  on  which 
good  government  must  rest.  It  is  often  said  by  the  single 
taxers  that  this  is  a  moral  question.  I  heartily  agree  with 
them  in  this  respect.  Certainly  it  is  a  moral  question, 
and  we  consider  it  very  immoral  indeed  to  take  from  an 
individual  property  of  any  kind  whatsoever  without  giv- 
ing compensation  therefor.  We  shall  consider  at  some 
length  the  right  of  the  government  to  confiscate  land 
values  without  compensation,  in  chapters  following. 

On  page  401,  Mr.  George  further  gives  vent  to  his 
ff^elings  as  regards  private  ownership  of  land.    He  says : 

"We  have  weighed  every  objection  and  seen 
that  neither  on  the  ground  of  equity  or  expe- 
diency is  there  anything  to  deter  from  making 
land  common  property  by  confiscating  rent. 

"But  a  question  of  method  remains.  How  shall 
we  do  it  ?    We  should  satisfy  the  law  of  justice. 


SINGLE  TAX   ANU  HOW  IT   WILL  OPEBATE 


23 


"We  should  meet  all  economic  requirements  by  at 
one  stroke  abolishing  all  private  titles,  declaring 
all  land  public  property  and  letting  it  out  to  the 
highest  bidders  in  lots  to  suit,  under  such  condi- 
tions as  would  sacredly  guard  the  private  right 
to  improvements." 

Again,  on  Page  404,  in  speaking  of  the  appropriation 
of  rent  by  taxation,  he  says  : 

"In  this  way  the  state  may  become  the  uni- 
versal landlord  without  calling  herself  so,  and 
without  assuming  a  single  new  function.  In 
form,  the  ownership  of  land  would  remain  just 
as  now.  No  owner  of  land  need  be  dispossessed, 
and  no  restriction  need  be  placed  upon  the 
amount  of  land  any  one  could  hold.  For,  rent 
being  taken  by  the  state  in  taxes,  land,  no  mat- 
ter in  whose  name  it  stood,  or  in  what  parcels  it 
was  held,  would  be  really  common  property,  and 
every  member  of  the  community  would  partici- 
pate in  the  advantages  of  its  ownership. 

"Now,  inasmuch  as  the  taxation  of  rent  or 
land  values,  must  necessarily  be  increased  just  as 
we  abolish  other  taxes,  we  may  put  the  proposi- 
tion into  practical  form  by  proposing 


How    it    could    be 
done? 


"TO  ABOLISH  ALL  TAXATION  SAVE  THAT  UPON 
LAND  VALUES." 

The  above  quotation  certainly  conveys  to  the  reader 
the  exact  meaning  of  Single  Tax.  It  certainly  makes 
clear  the  fact  that  this  so-called  tax  reform,  or  Single  Tax, 
is  not  a  tax  reform.  In  fact,  it  is  not  a  system  of  taxa- 
tion. It  is  a  method  by  which  land  values  are  to  be  con- 
fiscated. It  is  a  method  of  deliberately  robbing  the  right- 
ful owners  of  the  land  value.  It  is  a  system  of  repudia- 
tion. It  is  dishonest  and  destructive.  It  means  contrac- 
tion instead  of  expansion.  It  is  visionary  in  the  extreme. 
It  contemplates  the  placing  of  a  tax  on  values  of  land 
which  have  been  created  under  the  present  system,  but 
which  will  be  destroyed  under  its  own  operation.  There- 
fore, the  reasoning  is  extremely  unsound  and  illogical.  It 
would  destroy  all  incentive  for  public  improvements  which 


A  method  of  rob- 
bing land  own- 
ers 


24 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Land        values 
crashed 


Where  rent  ex- 
ceeds revenue, 
take  it  all 


has  been  one  of  the  great  elements  in  the  upbuilding  of 
our  country. 

As  a  further  evidence  that  the  operation  of  Single 
Tax  will  destroy  all  land  values  and  that  all  owners  of 
land  at  the  present  time  will  lose  their  land  under  the 
application  of  Single  Tax,  I  offer  you  the  words  of  Henry 
George.  On  Page  404,  in  speaking  further  on  this  land 
question,  he  says : 

"In  every  civilized  country,  even  the  newest, 
the  value  of  the  land  taken  as  a  Avhole  is  suf- 
ficient to  bear  the  entire  expenses  of  government. 
In  the  better  developed  countries  it  is  much  more 
than  sufficient.  Hence  it  will  not  be  enough  mere- 
ly to  place  all  taxes  upon  the  value  of  land.  It 
will  be  necessary,  where  rent  exceeds  the  present 
governmental  revenues,  commensurately  to  in- 
crease the  amount  demanded  in  taxation,  and  to 
continue  this  increase  as  society  progresses  and 
rent  advances.  But  this  is  so  natural  and  easy 
a  matter,  that  it  may  be  considered  as  involved, 
or  at  least  understood,  in  the  proposition  to  put 
all  taxes  on  the  value  of  land.  That  is  the  first 
step,  upon  which  the  practical  struggle  must  be 
made.  When  the  hare  is  once  caught  and  killed, 
cooking  him  will  follow  as  a  matter  of  course. 
When  the  common  right  to  land  is  so  far  appre- 
ciated that  all  taxes  are  abolished  save  those 
which  fall  upon  rent,  there  is  no  danger  of  much 
more  than  is  necessary  to  induce  them  to  collect 
the  public  revenues  being  left  to  individual  land 
holders." 


No     escape     from 
state   ownership 


Thus,  you  see.  there  is  no  escape.  The  land  must, 
under  the  application  of  Single  Tax.  revert  to  the  Gov- 
ernment. During  the  years  necessary  to  make  this  process 
complete,  land  values  will  decline  and  with  the  decline  of 
land  values,  business  will  be  demoralized,  industry  crip- 
pled, and  an  era  of  hard  times  and  financial  depression 
will  be  the  inevitable  result. 

A  reversion  to  the  old  system  of  course  will  follow, 
but  in  the  meantime  the  harm  has  been  done,  and  those 
who  will  be  able  to  withstand  the  crash,  who.  of  course, 


SINGLE  TAX   AND  HOW  IT   WLLL  OPERATE 


25 


would  be  the  rich,  would  come  out  greatly  benefitted.    The 
poor  would  be  poorer  and  the  rich  richer. 

I  now  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  final  consum- 
mation, to  the  milk  in  the  cocoanut  of  Single  Tax.  In 
this  quotation  is  centered  the  very  essence  and  process  of 
this  destructive  so-called  system  of  taxation  or  Single 
Tax,    In  speaking  of  the  method,  he  says : 

"I  do  not  propose  either  to  purchase  or  to  con- 
fiscate private  property  in  land.  The  first  would 
be  unjust;  the  second,  needless.  Let  the  indi- 
viduals who  now  hold  it  still  retain,  if  they  want 
to,  possession  of  what  they  are  pleased  to  call 
THEIR  land.  Let  them  continue  to  call  it 
THEIR  land.  Let  them  buy  and  sell,  and  be- 
queath and  devise  it.  We  may  safely  leave  them 
the  shell,  if  we  take  the  kernel.  'iT  IS  NOT 
NECESSARY  TO  CONFISCATE  LAND ;  IT  IS 
ONLY  NECESSARY  TO  CONFISCATE  RENT." 


The    milk    in    the 
cocoanut 


I  think  enough  has  been  quoted  from  "Progress  and 
Poverty,"  which  as  before  stated,  is  the  book  from  which 
all  single  tax  advocates  draw  their  inspiration.  In  fact. 
it  is  the  fountainhead  of  the  Single  Tax  scheme.  All  other 
books  written  on  Single  Tax  take  Henry  George  as  the-ir 
guide. 

I  have  offered  the  quotations  from  "Progress  and 
Poverty"  to  set  at  rest  any  doubt  as  to  the  ultimate  end 
of  the  Single  Tax  system.  The  logical  analysis  of  its 
operation,  however,  would  bring  you  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion, namely,  the  reversion  of  private  property  in  land  to 
the  state,  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  state  would  be  the 
landlord  and  the  present  owners  the  tenants. 

It  would  require  too  much  space  to  enter  into  a  com- 
plete analysis  of  the  system. 

Inasmuch  as  "Progress  and  Poverty"  was  written 
some  thirty-three  years  ago  and  that  during  this  lapse  of 
time  there  might  possibly  have  been  some  change  in  the 
sentiment  among  the  Single  Taxers,  I  want  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  language  of  Henry  George.  Jr.,  who  de- 
livered  an   address   in  Vancouver.   B.   C,   some  time   in 


Logical   analysis 


The  same  today 


26 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Henry  George,  Jr., 
speaks 


Time     makes 
change 


Peculiar  reasoning 


January,  1911.     In  speaking  of  conditions  in  Vancouver, 
he  says: 

"What  was  required  in  the  case  of  Vancouver  was 
that  the  full  market  value  of  the  land  should  be  made, 
that  as  taxation  now  existed  it  applied  to  75  per  cent  of 
the  true  value.  This  assessment  should  be  increased,  prac- 
tically to  100  per  cent.  Then  that  100  per  cent  should  b« 
taxed  so  as  to  absorb  into  the  public  coffer  practically  the 
whole  of  the  annual  potential  rent.  This  is  taking  the  ker- 
nel of  the  nut. 

"If  that  were  done,  not  only  would  all  the  present 
needs  for  revenue  be  supplied,  but  a  great  surplus  revenue 
would  be  furnished.  In  addition  to  this  revenue  result, 
land  speculation  would  be  destroyed,  for  no  man  would 
hold  valuable  land  vacant  for  a  rise  in  the  value  if  that 
value  was  to  be  taxed  out  of  his  land  into  the  public 
treasury." 

Hence,  you  see  that  the  old  Henry  George  theory  of 
Single  Tax,  as  written  in  "Progress  and  Poverty,"  has 
not  been  changed  one  iota.  The  advocates  of  Single  Tax 
are  just  as  keen  today  to  tax  land  values  out  of  the  pos- 
session of  the  individuals  as  was  Henry  George  at  the 
time  he  wrote  his  book.  "Progress  and  Poverty,"  thirty- 
three  years  ago. 

It  is  a  most  peculiar  reasoning  that  the  Single  Taxers 
indulge  in.  If  you  will  notice,  Henry  George,  Jr.,  speaks 
of  the  vast  sum  of  money  that  would  be  taken  from  the 
present  land  holders  of  Vancouver,  B.  C,  by  land  value 
tax,  that  is  when  the  full  rental  value  of  the  land  is  taken. 
In  the  next  breath  he  says  land  speculation,  under  the 
single  tax  system,  would  receive  its  death  blow  and  land 
values  would  therefore  decline  until  the  state  took  all  of 
the  value  out  of  it  by  process  of  Single  Tax.  In  one  minute 
he  would  tax  the  present  land  values,  thereby  receiving  a 
handsome  revenue,  and  in  the  next  minute  he  would  de- 
stroy the  present  land  values  on  which  he  was  going  to 
receive  these  handsome  revenues.  Now  as  to  just  what  he 
really  could  do  and  would  do,  and  how  he  would  raise  the 
revenue  is  a  mystery  yet  unsolved,  or  at  least  to  be 
explained. 


SINGLE  TAX   AND   HOW  IT   WILL  OPERATE 


27 


SINGLE  TAX  FIGURES  A  DECEPTION. 

Single  Tax  advocates  fail  to  recognize  that  the  condi- 
tions under  which  land  values  have  been  created  and  on 
M^hich  they  base  their  reasoning  and  figures  would  not 
exist  under  the  application  of  their  system.  Therefore, 
the  figures  they  present  in  many  cases,  in  fact,  all  cases, 
are  misleading. 

As  an  illustration,  they  would  take  the  value  of  a  city 
lot  and  the  value  of  the  house  upon  the  lot.  If  the  value 
of  the  lot  exceeded  the  value  of  the  house  under  the  appli- 
cation of  Single  Tax,  the  taxes  would  be  higher;  if  the 
value  of  the  house  exceeded  the  value  of  the  lot,  the 
taxes  would  be  less.  In  this  way  they  reason  that  taxes 
in  cities,  especially  in  the  outlying  districts,  would  be  less 
for  the  owners  to  pay  under  Single  Tax  than  under  the 
present  general  tax  system.  They  do  not  take  into  con- 
sideration that  the  many  vacant  lots,  which,  as  a  rule, 
are  three  vacant  to  one  improved,  which  under  the  pres- 
ent system  are  revenue-payers,  would,  under  Single  Tax. 
be  the  first  to  revert  to  the  state.  The  product  of  the  city 
lot  is  the  rental  of  the  house  upon  it,  and  when  there  are 
houses  enough  to  supply  the  demand,  the  further  building 
of  houses  would  be  a  loss  because  there  would  be  no  rent- 
ers. Even  though  rents  came  down,  that  would  not  multi- 
ply the  number  of  tenants.  Therefore,  these  vacant  lots 
could  not  stand  the  burden  of  taxation,  and  as  revenue- 
payers  they  would  disappear.  The  burden  of  taxation 
would  then  fall  more  heavily  upon  those  who  occupy  the 
land.  This  the  Single  Taxers  fail  to  recognize,  or  if  they 
do,  they  fail  to  mention  it  in  their  literature  or  in  their 
public  speeches.  It  is  very  apparent  why  they  do  not 
mention  it,  conceding  they  recognize  it,  because  it  would 
destroy  the  force  of  their  argument. 


Figures 
tion 


a    decep- 


Values How 

fected? 


af- 


Vacant  lots  of  no 
value  for  rev- 
enue 


SELLING  VALUE  GONE. 

Furthermore,  when  the  lot  adjoining  yours  has  been 
confiscated  through  the  process  of  Single  Tax,  the  selling 
value    thereby    having    been    destroyed,    your    lot,    even 


28 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


rigures  of  U'Ren 
misleading 


Sell   or     improT* 


Law    of 
ment 


develop- 


though  you  are  living  upon  it,  is  worth  no  more  than  the 
lot  adjoining  yours. 

Suppose  your  house  should  burn  down ;  your  lot  be- 
comes a  vacant  lot.  This  is  true  of  every  lot  in  the  city 
on  which  there  is  a  house.  The  small  consideration  that 
ma}^  be  pointed  out  in  figures  as  a  saving  under  the  Single 
Tax  system,  even  though  final  confiscation  would  not  be 
the  result,  the  reduction  in  the  value  of  your  lot  would 
far  exceed  the  small  sum  you  would  save  in  the  taxes  as 
figured  in  Dr.  Eggleston's  Campaign  Book  of  1910,  and 
other  figures  that  the  Single  Taxers  present  to  the  tax 
payers  of  Oregon. 

What  is  true  of  a  city  lot  is  true  of  a  farm,  of  the 
five-acre  tract  that  the  gardner  operates. 

Single  Taxers  says:  "We  will  make  you  improve 
your  lot  or  sell  it."  Suppose  you  do  sell  it,  the  lot  still 
remains  there,  and  will  not  be  improved  unless  there  is  a 
demand  for  the  improvements.  It  is  worse  than  folly  to 
advocate  the  theory  that  you  can  continue  improving  city 
lots,  build  houses,  office  buildings  and  store  buildings,  un- 
less there  is  a  demand  for  them. 

In  other  words,  a  city  can  grow  no  faster  than  the 
country  and  commerce  from  which  it  draws  its  support. 
It  would  be  irrational  and  illogical  to  attempt  or  to  think 
of  attempting  to  improve  and  bring  to  a  state  of  perfec- 
tion the  entire  resources  of  the  country  at  once.  The  law 
of  supply  and  demand,  competition,  of  compensation  and 
the  various  other  elements  that  enter  into  trade  and  de- 
velopment must  regulate  the  rapidity  with  which  a  coun- 
try or  city  is  developed.  An  act  of  legislation  cannot 
develop  a  country.  Legislation  may,  however,  stimulate 
development,  thrift  and  industry,  by  affording  encourage- 
ment to  individual  possession,  enterprise  and  all  the  un- 
earned increment  in  such  industry  and  enterprise  as  may 
accrue  to  it  as  society  grows  and  population  becomes 
greater.  Such  a  guaranty  is  best  given  by  the  perma- 
nency and  stability  of  the  laws  under  which  and  by  which 
the  people  are  governed.  It  is  the  stability  and  perma- 
nence of  laws  that  inspire  confidence,  and  the  very  mo- 


SINGLE  TAX   AND  HOW  IT   WILL  OPERATE  29 

ment  that  a  community  or  state  shows  a  disposition  to 
continually  experiment  and  change  their  laws,  especially 
such  Laws  as  would  materially  affect  the  fiscal  system, 
confidence,  thrift  and  enterprise  will  surely  g^ve  way  to 
fear,  indifference  and  financial  disorder.  It  is  therefore 
necessary  that  people  be  extremely  conservative  in  intro- 
ducing and  passing  acts  of  legislation.  It  must  be  remem.  stability  of  our 
bered  that  our  present  system  is  the  outgrowth  of  hun-  \^J^  *"  inspira- 
dreds  of  years  of  experience,  and  that  while  many  changes 
have  been  made  in  our  laws,  one  principle  has  always 
been  maintained,  that  is  that  no  individual  shall  be  de- 
prived of  his  holdings  without  due  process  of  law  and 
compensation  therefor. 


Ui 

2 

O 

Q 
2 

< 

X 
H 

2 

O 


Q 

Q 
< 

CD 

Q 

D 
O 

X 

<: 

H 

O 
2 

CO 

Ul 
DC 

H 


CHAPTER  III. 

CONFISCATION  OF  PRIVATE  PROPERTY  IN  LAND 
BY  THE  PROCESS  OF  SINGLE  TAX. 


I  hold  that  such  a  process  is  immoral,  unjust  and 
decidedly  unethical.  It  is  contrary  to  the  judgment  of 
the  great  thinkers  of  the  age,  contrary  to  the  judgment  of 
men  who  have  given  their  lives  to  the  study  of  social  and 
economic  questions.  Single  Tax  is  the  dream  of  a  vision- 
aire — a  man  who  allowed  his  emotion  and  sympathy  to 
suppress  logic  and  reason.  So  far  as  the  analysis  of  his 
system  is  concerned,  it  may  be  said  that  his  deductions 
from  the  premises  taken  are  good.  The  trouble  lies  in 
the  false  premises  on  which  his  whole  system  rests, 
namely,  that  "private  property  in  land  is  a  bold,  bare, 
enormous  wrong  like  that  of  chattel  slavery."  In  order 
to  show  you  to  what  extent  the  Single  Taxers  would  go 
and  be  justified,  reasoning  from  their  viewpoint,  I  want 
to  quote  you  the  words  of  Henry  George  as  found  in 
"Progress  and  Poverty"  on  page  362.  In  speaking  of  the 
condition  of  society  and  the  injustice  of  private  ownership 
of  land,  he  says : 


Confiscation 
moral 


"For  this  robbery  is  not  like  the  robbery  of  a 
horse  or  a  sum  of  money,  that  ceases  with  the  act. 
It  is  a  fresh  and  continuous  robbery,  that  goes  on 
every  day  and  every  hour.  It  is  not  from  the 
produce  of  the  past  that  rent  is  drawn ;  it  is  from 
the  produce  of  the  present.  It  is  a  toll  levied 
upon  labor  constantly  and  continuously.  Every 
blow  of  the  hammer,  every  stroke  of  the  pick, 
every  thrust  of  the  shuttle,  every  throb  of  the 
steam  engine,  pay  it  tribute.  It  levies  upon  the 
earnings  of  the  men  who,  deep  under  ground, 
risk  their  lives,  and  of  those  who  over  white 
surges  hang  to  reeling  masts ;  it  claims  the  just 
reward  of  the  capitalist  and  the  fruits  of  the  in- 


All  the  ills  of  so- 
ciety due  to  pri- 
vate ownership 
of  land 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Emotion      subdues 
reason 


ventor's  patient  effort;  it  takes  little  children 
from  play  and  from  school,  and  compels  them  to 
work  before  their  bones  are  hard  or  their  muscles 
are  firm ;  it  robs  the  shivering  of  warmth ;  the  hun- 
gry, of  food ;  the  sick,  of  medicine ;  the  anxious, 
of  peace.  It  debases,  and  embrutes,  and  embit- 
ters. It  crowds  families  of  eight  and  ten  into  a 
single  squalid  room ;  it  herds  like  swine  agricul- 
tural gangs  of  boys  and  girls ;  it  fills  the  gin 
palace  and  groggery  with  those  who  have  no 
comfort  in  their  homes ;  it  makes  lads  who  might 
be  useful  men  candidates  for  prisons  and  peniten- 
tiaries; it  fills  brothels  with  girls  who  might  have 
known  the  pure  joy  of  motherhood;  it  sends 
greed  and  all  evil  passions  prowling  through  so- 
ciety as  a  hard  winter  drives  the  wolves  to  the 
abodes  of  men;  it  darkens  faith  in  the  human 
soul,  and  across  the  reflection  of  a  just  and  mer- 
ciful Creator  draws  the  veil  of  a  hard,  and  blind, 
and  cruel  fate  I" 


PriTate      property 
in  land  to  perish 


From  the  above  quotation  it  must  be  apparent  to  the 
reader  that  Henry  George  Avas  an  extremist  and  that  he 
really  believed  that  all  of  the  ills  of  society,  as  before 
mentioned,  are  traceable  and  due  to  private  ownership 
of  land.  It  must  also  be  appaxent  that  nothing  short  of 
the  abolishment  of  private  property  in  land  will  ever 
satisfy  the  demands  of  the  Single  Tax  advocates.  While 
I  do  not  think  for  a  moment  that  any  intelligent  man  or 
woman  or  any  community  of  people  would  ever  adopt 
such  a  system  when  they  are  advised  of  its  true  meaning 
and  purpose,  yet  it  is  necessary  to  review  the  fallacies  of 
such  an  argument  as  is  offered  by  Henry  George  and  his 
followers. 

Herbert  Spencer,  perhaps  one  of  the  greatest  scien- 
tists and  political  economists  of  the  age,  in  speaking  of 
the  above  quotation  from  Henry  George,  in  the  Edinburgh 
Review  of  1883,  says : 

"It  cannot  fail  to  surprise  sober  persons  on 
reading  such  rant  as  we  have  just  quoted,  that  a 
person  of  so  much  intelligence  as  the  reader  evi- 
dently is,  however  misguided  his  views  of  the 
economic  results   of  land  ownership,   should   be 


CONFISCATION  OF  PRIVATE  PBOPERTY 


33 


able  to  persuade  himself  thus  summarily  to  as- 
cribe all  of  the  derangements  and  diseases,  physi- 
cal and  moral  of  society,  to  one  single  cause.  Is 
it  possible  for  any  person  who  casts  an  observant 
eye  on  the  sad  condition  of  the  indigent  classes  in 
our  crowded  towns,  to  believe  that  the  greed  of 
the  landed  proprietors  and  that  alone  is  the 
source  of  all  the  evils  that  he  sees  there.  The  true 
causes  of  that  manifold  mass  of  suffering  are  not 
easily  enumerated.  Intemperance  with  all  the 
painful  consequences  which  it  entails,  not  on  the 
individual  onh'.  but  on  his  children  and  posterity, 
heads  the  list.  Indolence,  improvidence,  physical 
disease,  inherited  weaknesses  of  mind,  vicious 
dispositions,  and  all  manner  of  evil  passions  are 
the  chief  factors  of  this  conglomeration  of  mis- 
ery. Mere  indigence  indeed  is  to  be  met  with  in 
the  country  as  well  as  in  the  city,  but  by  a  natu- 
ral gravitation,  the  refuse  of  the  community,  the 
great  multitude  of  the  feeble  and  the  helpless, 
those  who  cannot  and  those  who  will  not  work 
for  their  own  living,  the  tramp,  the  criminal,  the 
profligate  and  the  outcast,  flock  together  and 
concentrate  themselves  in  large  towns.  These 
are  the  camp  followers  of  the  great  industrial 
army  whose  headquarters  are  in  crowded  centers 
of  trade  and  manufacture ;  nor  is  the  plague  of 
the  squalid  pauperism  peculiar  to  the  populous 
centers  of  the  old  world. 

"According  to  ^Ir.  George's  own  statement. 
New  York  is  no  less  burdened  than  ^lanchester 
or  Lyons  with  a  degraded  and  indolent  popula- 
tion. How  it  should  be  dealt  with,  how  to  rescue 
from  the  mass  those  whom  it  may  be  possible  to 
reclaim,  to  succor  such  as  may  be  helped  to  ex- 
tricate themselves,  to  restrain  those  who  were 
abandoned  to  evil  habits  from  preying  on  their 
fellows,  such  are  the  problems  which  task  to  the 
utmost  the  wisdom  of  the  statesmen  and  the  phil- 
anthropist. Happily  we  may  say  that  in  this  age 
and  in  our  own  country  the  efforts  to  cope  with 
such  difficulties  are  more  energetic  and  better 
directed  perhaps  than  at  any  former  period.  Yet 
the  attempt  to  raise  the  stone  of  Sisyphus  to  the 
summit  is  still  baffled.  According  to  our  Ameri- 
can philosopher  however,  all  the  miseries  of  so- 
cietv  have  but  one  neck  which  mav  be  severed  bv 


Herbert  Spencer's 
reasons  for  Ills 
of  society 


Camp  followers 


Is    it    possible    to 
regulate? 


34 


SINGLE  TAX   EXPOSED 


Taxation 
change 
nature 


can't 
human 


Element  of  chance 


Judgment  distorted 


a  single  blow, 
confiscation." 


The  neck  is  rent,  the  remedy  is 


It  appears  to  me  that  Herbert  Spencer  has  pointed 
out  cjuite  clearly  that  Mr.  George  is  entirely  wrong  when 
he  reasons  that  all  of  the  ills  of  society  enumerated  in  his 
book  are  traceable  to  the  private  ownership  of  land. 
Certainly  no  system  of  taxation  or  the  enactment  of  land 
laws  of  any  description  can  change  human  nature.  ^Ir. 
George  fails  to  recognize  the  inherent  inequalities  of  the 
human  race.  He  fails  to  recognize  the  great  element  of 
chance  with  which  humanity  must  battle  and  which  is 
very  largely  responsible  for  the  unequal  distribution  of 
wealth.  Such  would  be  the  case  if  all  men  were  equal  in 
intellect,  disposition  and  thrift.  Chance  would  not  treat 
all  alike.  We  must  leave  the  reader  to  follow  this  thought 
to  greater  extent  than  we  are  here  able  to  enter  into. 
The  conclusion  after  a  careful  analysis  of  the  condition 
must  be  that  Mr.  George  allowed  his  sympathies  and 
emotion  to  distort  his  judgment. 


CHAPTER   IV. 


REPUDIATION    OF    PRIVATE    CONTRACTS. 


In  the  early  history  of  the  Republic  it  became  neces- 
sary to  enact  certain  laws  for  the  disposition  of  the  pub- 
lic domain.  The  founders  and  early  law-makers  of  our 
country,  guided  by  the  wisdom  and  experience  of  older 
and  advanced  civilized  nations,  enacted  laws  that  in  their 
judgment  would  offer  the  greatest  security  and  the  great- 
est encouragement  for  settlers  to  take  up  the  then  ap- 
parently unlimited  public  domain.  Our  early  law-makers 
though  not  versed  in  political  and  social  science  as  we  are 
today,  seemed  to  have  been  inspired  with  the  fundamental 
principles  of  civilized  and  organized  society.  They  recog- 
nized that  the  private  appropriation  of  land  was  the 
foundation,  the  bed-rock  on  which  a  stable  and  progres- 
sive government  must  rest.  They  recognized  that  a  na- 
tion of  home-owners,  be  their  homes  ever  so  humble, 
would  l)e  a  nation  far  superior  to  that  of  a  nation  whose 
inhabitants  were  merely  tenants  to  the  government.  They 
recognized  that  great  inducements  must  be  offered  to  the 
{People  of  the  old  world  to  persuade  them  to  cross  the 
ocean  to  a  far-away  and  unknown  land.  They  recognized 
tliat  there  must  be  a  great  reward  in  store  for  people  to 
take  such  a  risk  and  such  a  chance.  Therefore  they  of- 
fered by  the  enactment  of  their  land-laws.  160  acres  of 
good  agricultural  land  as  a  homestead  which  should  ever 
belong  to  the  homesteader.  This  indeed  was  a  great  re- 
ward to  the  poor  and  homeless  people  of  all  nations,  and 
they  accepted  the  invitation.  The  conditions  under  which 
our  public  domain  has  been  settled  were  that  any  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  native-born  or  otlierwise.  could  take 
up  160  acres  of  our  public  lands  under  the  conditions  that 
when  a  certain  amount  of  improvements  had  been  made 
upon  the  land  and  a  continual    residence    of    a    certain 


Early     history     of 
land  laws 


Understood  princi- 
ples of  govern- 
ment 


Nation    of     home- 
owners 


Incentive     to     en- 
dure hardships 


Land  Laws 


3G 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Title  in  fee  simple 


To    Have    and    to 
Hold 


Bights   of   domain 


Encouraged    home- 
■fauilding 


Work  of  Transfor- 
mation Legion 


Good  citizenship 


Transfer  m  a  t  i  o  n 
step  by  step 


Clearing    the    way 


leugth  of  time  had  been  made  by  the  elaimant,  final  proof 
might  be  made.  The  government  would  then  give  to  the 
claimant  a  title  in  fee  simple,  which  means  that  the  land 
and  all  of  the  appurtenances  thereunto  should  forever 
afterwards  belong  to  the  one  who  legally  held  this  title; 
that  the  land  might  be  divided  into  as  many  parts  as  were 
desirable ;  tliat  title  could  be  passed  to  any  one  of  the 
subdivisions ;  that  there  would  be  no  interference  from 
society  or  the  state ;  that  all  values  attached  to  this  land 
from  any  cause  whatsoever  should  become  a  part  of  it 
and  belong  to  the  legal  owner;  that  it  should  ahvajs  bo 
theirs;  that  in  case  for  any  reason,  society  needed  any 
portion  of  the  land  under  this  title,  for  the  public  good, 
it  might  be  condemned  and  a  just  and  equitable  compen- 
sation allowed  the  holder  of  the  land. 

Such  a  guarantee  from  the  government  had  a  very 
stimulating  influence  for  the  people  to  take  up  public 
domain.  Such  an  invitation  to  the  people  of  the  old 
world  was  readily  responded  to.  We  needed  the  pres- 
ence of  the  foreigner ;  we  needed  their  brawn  and  muscle ; 
we  needed  their  numbers  to  assist  in  converting  this  great 
primitive  continent  from  a  state  of  savagery  and  waste 
into  one  of  civilization  and  productiveness.  Under  the 
stimulating  influence  of  the  land  laws  above  described, 
the  work  of  transforming  a  wilderness  into  fields  of  wav- 
ing grain  and  pastures  on  which  grazed  the  lowing  herds, 
wliere  savage  life  clothed  in  skins  and  housed  in  wig- 
wams, gave  way  to  rude  but  happy  homes  of  civilized, 
honest,  law-abiding  and  patriotic  citizens,  was  undertaken. 
Step  by  step,  and  section  by  section,  this  work  of  trans- 
formation was  carried  on.  Again  and  again  people  wouhl 
leave  the  more  developed  sections  and  push  on  into  tlie 
wilderness  and  plains  to  carve  out  new  settlements, 
thereby  clearing  the  way  for  their  more  etfeminate  fol- 
lowers, beating  back  the  red  Indians,  battling  with  hard- 
ships, suffering  untold  agonies  and  privations,  all  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  possession  of  a  homestead — a  farm,  a 
parcel  of  ground  of  160  acres  which  they  could  call  their 
own,  and  which,  the}'  reasoned,  in    the    course    of    time 


KEI'UUIATION    OV    PRIVATE    CONTRACTS 


37 


would  become  possibly  very  valuable  There  seems  to  be 
an  inherent  desire  in  the  individual  to  secure  a  plot  of 
ground  that  he  may  call  his  own;  that  he  may  there  feel 
secure;  that  organized  society  will  defend  him  in  the 
possession  of  this  plot  of  ground;  that  as  population  in- 
creases this  land  will  become  more  valuable.  These  ad- 
vance guards  of  civilization  reasoned,  and  correctly  so. 
that  emigration  would  follow  their  footsteps  and  that 
with  the  coming  of  more  people  there  w^ould  be  the  mer- 
chant, the  blacksmith,  the  cobbler;  then  would  come 
manufacturing  plants,  transportation,  and  finally,  all  of 
the  necessary  divisions  of  labor  and  industry  which  go 
to  make  up  a  modem  civilization.  The  reader  may  call  to 
mind  instances  where  the  original  homesteader  and  the 
early  settlers  have  waited  patiently  for  years  and  years 
for  this  period  to  come,  for  the  time  to  come  when  they 
could  convert  their  homestead  into  a  few  thousand  dollars 
and  enjoy  some  of  the  privileges  of  modern  society.  Not 
coming  as  soon  as  expected,  and  becoming  discouraged, 
these  homesteaders  have  sold  their  land,  because  the  till- 
ing of  the  soil  was  not  as  profitable  as  other  pursuits.  It 
was  not  as  profitable  as  merchandizing  or  many  lines  of 
manufacturing  that  was  going  on  about  them.  They  took 
their  compensation  for  the  land  and  embarked  in  some 
industry  that  perhaps  proved  a  failure  for  the  lack  of 
judgment  or  experience.  Conditions  change  and  the  land 
they  sold  becomes  valuable.  They  are  discouraged,  and  com- 
plain that  they  have  not  received  their  just  reward.  They 
have  been  their  own  free  moral  agent  and  acted  to  the 
best  of  their  judgment.  Here  the  element  of  chance  has 
played  its  part.  One  has  reaped  where  another  has  sown. 
And  so  this  process  goes  on  from  day  to  day,  year  to  year. 
Yet  while  many  have  made  mistakes  and  others  have 
profited  thereby,  it  has  been  the  stability  and  permanency 
of  our  law^s  and  institutions  that  has  converted  the  North 
American  continent  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  from 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  frozen  regions  of  the  North, 
into  one  vast  field  of  agriculture.  Thrift,  enterprise  and 
progress  are   visible  on  every  hand.     Homesteads  have 


Security  in  posses- 
sion an  element 
of  progress 


D  e  V  e  lopment 
Follow 


to 


Instances     of    pa- 
tience 


Tilling  of  the  soil 
not  profitable 


Element  of  chance 
plays  its  part 


Thrift  and  indus- 
try replace  wil- 
derness 


;57()7r>  1 


38 


SINGLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


Trade  centers  val- 
uable 


Repudiation  not  to 
be  tolerated 


Great  stimulant 


been  converted  into  village  sites,  villages  have  grown 
into  cities,  and  land  has  become  very  valuable  in  these 
cities.  Those  who  were  fortunate  enough  to  be  the  posses- 
sors of  these  lands  at  the  time  it  became  apparent  that 
that  particular  locality  \vas  going  to  be  a  center  of  trade, 
traffic  and  commerce,  have  become  very  wealth}'.  This  is  a 
natural  consequence,  and  is  the  result  of  the  very  principle 
that  has  stimulated  the  people  of  our  country  to  such  ac- 
tivity, thrift  and  enterprise.  There  has  been  permanency 
to  our  institutions.  Investors  have  felt  secure  in  their 
investments,  believing,  and  in  fact  knowing  that  our 
citizens  Avere  honest  and  honorable;  that  repudiation  of 
contracts  would  not  be  tolerated;  that  what  was  theirs 
toda^-  would  be  theirs  tomorrow,  and  would  continue  to 
be  theirs  so  long  as  they  so  desired ;  or  if  they  passed 
title,  that  it  would  belong  to  the  one  to  whom  title  was 
passed,  whether  it  was  land  or  any  other  thing  of  value ; 
that  the  laws  under  which  they  were  governed  were 
secure ;  and  that  the  rights  of  the  individuals  to  their  pos- 
sessions would  always  be  recognized.  It  has  been  the 
stability  of  our  laws  and  institutions  that  has  caused  the 
development,  growth  and  prosperity  of  our  country  to  far 
exceed  that  of  any  other  nation. 


Is  it  honest? 


To  give  nothing  in 
return 


SINGLE  TAX  WOULD  DESTROY. 

Now  comes  Henry  George  and  his  theory  of  taxation 
whereby  he  would  place  all  of  the  burden  of  supporting 
the  government  on  one  class  of  property — land.  By  this 
process,  he  reasons  that  it  will  be  necessary,  just  and 
honest  to  take  in  taxes  all  of  the  earning  value  of  the 
land, — whether  it  be  a  farm  or  a  city  lot.  it  makes  no  dif- 
ference. By  this  process  he  would  take  from  the  indi- 
viduals who  now  hold  the  land,  all  of  the  selling  value 
represented  therein ;  and  in  return,  give  them  nothing. 
This  I  hold  to  be  repudiation,  pure  and  simple.  It  can 
1)0  nothing  else.  Our  Single  Tax  friends  will  say  "Does 
not  the  government  now  take  from  individuals  lands 
whei-c  it  is  necessary  for  tlie  public  good?''    This  we  have 


REPUDIATION    OF    PRIVATE   CONTRACTS  39 

already  answered.  Certainly  the  government  reserves 
the  right  to  condemn  under  the  laws  of  public  domain, 
but  in  such  cases  the  owners  receive  a  fair  and  equitable 
compensation  for  the  value  represented  in  the  land.  It 
appears  to  me  that  any  intelligent  individual  can  at  once  ^^/°"^  ^®  ^'^®^*' 
see  that  the  adoption  of  such  a  system  as  would  take  from 
an  individual,  land  values,  or  values  of  any  kind  with- 
out compensation,  would  be  detrimental  to  the  best  inter- 
ests of  society;  that  it  would  create  disturbance;  that  it 
would  destroy  confidence  and  undermine  the  whole  politi- 
cal and  social  system  on  which  the  business  and  commerce 
of  our  country  is  constructed. 


CHAPTER  V. 


PRIVATE    APPROPRIATION    OF    THE    SOIL, 
FIRST  MILE-POST  ON  THE  HIGHWAY 
OF   NATIONAL  PROGRESS. 


THE 


I  have  attempted  to  make  clear  to  the  reader  thai 
the  object  of  Single  Tax  is  that  the  state  should  own  the 
entire  land  of  the  country  on  the  ground  that  it  is  the 
legitimate  property  of  the  whole  community,  that 
it  ought  never  to  have  been  alienated  to  private  owners 
whose  rights  are  usurped  and  must  be  brought  to  an  end, 
either  by  compulsory  methods  or  simple  confiscation  by 
the  Single  Tax  process.  IMr.  George  goes  so  far  as  to 
advocate  the  latter  method,  on  the  ground  that  private 
property  in  land  is  as  immoral  as  slavery,  and  he  extends 
his  anathema  not  only  to  agricultural  land  but  to  build- 
ing land  in  towns,  and  argues  that  even  a  free-hold  on 
which  the  owner  has  built  a  house  is  as  much  a  robber  of 
the  public  domain  as  the  largest  estate  of  a  Highland 
laird.  He  condemns  not  only  the  great  estates  of  the 
aristocracy  of  the  old  world,  but  the  small  properties  of 
the  American  homesteader  and  all  of  the  French  peas- 
antry— even  the  poor  widow  with  her  two  small  lots.  In 
his  eyes  the  possession  of  any  portion  of  the  earth's  sur- 
face by  private  owner  is  theft,  and  the  stolen  goods  ought 
to  be  restored  to  the  public  that  has  been  defrauded. 

The  phrase  "nationalization  of  land"  has  a  fine 
grandiose  sound  about  it,  like  other  w^ell-known  catch- 
words which  take  captive,  minds  that  have  not  analyzed 
the  question  or  grappled  with  the  real  difficulties  of  the 
case.  It  has  a  delightful  vagueness  which  covers  many 
shades  of  meaning  and  makes  it  no  easy  task  to  analyze 
or  refute  it. 

We  have  explained  quite  thoroughly  in  the  previous 


The  first  step 


Holds  property   in 
land  immoral 


Even  the  widow's 
lots 


Would  lull  to  sleep 


42 


SINGLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


People  the  tenants 


In  the  tribal  state 


When     agriculture 
began 


Ownership  of  land 
coincident  to  ag- 
ricultural devel- 
opment 


Civilization     and 
land  ownership 


chapters  and  have  quoted  from  "Progress  and  Poverty" 
sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  it  is  Mr.  George's  inten- 
tion for  the  state  to  become  the  landlord,  and  that  those 
who  occupy  the  land  must  therefore  be  tenants,  paying 
the  rental  to  the  state.  While  he  has  not  in  so  many 
words  advocated  land  socialism  and  land  communism,  he 
has  advocated  it  under  another  title. 

Now  the  main  ground  on  which  Mr.  George  makes 
this  startling  proposal  is  that  the  land  originally  be- 
longed to  the  state  or  community  and  that  it  was  wrong- 
fully granted  away  to  favored  individuals.  He  compiles 
a  brief  history  of  ancient  civilization  to  prove  his  point. 
I  will  go  with,  him  so  far  as  to  allow  that  before  the  earth 
was  peopled,  land  was  not  appropriated  and  that  while 
population  was  very  sparse,  it  was  not  worth  the  while 
of  individuals  to  claim  special  plots  of  ground.  Therefore 
there  were  no  special  plots  of  ground  cultivated.  The  origin 
of  all  communities  that  we  know  anything  of  was  the 
tribal  state ;  when  a  tribe  or  a  clan,  under  a  chieftain  of 
their  choice,  roamed  over  a  wide  tract  of  country,  sup- 
ported by  their  flocks  and  herds  or  by  the  produce  of  the 
chase.  Agriculture  in  our  sense  of  the  word  did  not  exist 
in  tlie  infancy  of  the  race.  Our  ancestors  lived  as  savage 
tribes  now  do,  by  hunting  and  fishing  and  afterwards  by 
pastoral  pursuits.  Therefore  there  was  no  motive  for  the 
private  appropriation  of  land,  for  the  tilling  of  the  soil 
was  not  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  the  inhabitants 
who  were  then  in  a  state  of  savagery.  But  the  point  I 
wish  to  bring  out  is,  that  usually  private  ownership  of 
land  arose  when  agriculture  commenced.  It  should  be  ap- 
parent to  the  reader  that,  thus  far  in  the  history  of  our 
early  institutions,  private  appropriation  of  the  soil  was 
necessary  for  the  very  reason  that  one  would  scarcely  im- 
prove a  piece  of  land  which  would  be  necessary  under 
agricultural  conditions,  and  not  be  protected  in  such  im- 
provements. Even  in  our  primitive  state  of  agriculture 
private  appropriation  of  the  soil  was  necessary;  no  one 
would  toil  to  raise  crops  which  he  could  not  enjoy.  In- 
deed so  invariable  has  been  this  rule  that  we  may  almost 


PKIVATE    APPROPRIATION   OF   THE  SOIL 


43 


say  with  certainty  that  civilization  has  never  made  a 
commencement,  or  at  least  has  never  advanced  beyond  a 
rudimentary  stage  until  private  ownership  in  land,  or  at 

least  individual  occupancy  was  recognized  by  common 
consent  of  the  tribe  or  clan,  or  by  the  law  of  the  state. 
The  necessary  stimulus  for  cultivating  and  improving  soil 
was  wanting  until  security  was  given,  that  he  who  la- 
bored should  enjoy  the  fruits  of  his  labor. 

I  want  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  the  reader  this 
])oint,  that  the  necessary  stimulus  for  cultivating  and  im- 
})roving  the  soil  was  wanting  until  security  was  given  that 
lie  who  labored  should  enjoy  the  fruits  of  his  labor. 

But  without  going  back  to  the  dim  and  dusty  records 
of  antiquity,  we  have  only  to  take  a  survey  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  globe  today  to  prove  the  truth  of  my  asser- 
tions. We  still  have  in  active  existence  nearly  every  form 
of  human  society  from  the  most  barbarous  to  the  most 
refined.  We  still  see  a  large  part  of  the  earth  tenanted 
by  races  as  primitive  in  their  habits  as  our  forefathers 
Avere  when  they  were  clothed  in  skins  of  beasts  and  pos- 
sessed the  soil  of  the  old  world  in  common.  Nearly  all 
Africa,  considerable  portions  of  North  and  South  America, 
a  large  portion  of  Central  Asia,  the  interior  of  Australia. 
New  Guinea,  and  many  of  the  islands  of  Polynesia  are  all 
in  that  state  of  primitive  simplicity.  In  these  regions  the 
land  is  not  appropriated.  It  is  either  the  common  pos- 
session of  the  tribe,  or  the  battleground  of  contending 
tribes.  Now  Mr.  George  gravely  assumes  that  all  our 
modern  poverty  and  degradation  are  the  result  of  private 
land  ownership.  He  would  have  you  believe  that  all  of 
the  ills  that  now  exist  in  society  would  disappear  if  we 
would  but  revert  to  the  happy  Arcadian  times  when  land 
communism  prevailed.  It  is  but  natural  for  us  to  ask 
whether  we  find  an  absence  of  poverty  and  degradation 
among  those  portions  of  mankind  who  have  preserved  the 
primitive  traditions  unimpaired,  as  is  in  the  case  of  the 
countries  above  mentioned. 

Let  us  in  our  imagination  travel  through  Africa  with 
Stanley  or  Livingstone.     Let  us  accompany  the  expedi- 


Necessary 
lus 


stimu- 


Primitive  methods 
yet  found 


Uncivilized 
tries 


Where  p  overty  is 
greatest 


Follow  Stanley  and 
Livingstone 


44 


SINGLE  TAX   EXPOSED 


Human  want  and 
misery  and  dis- 
regard of  life 


Lived  by  the  chase 


Degradation  great- 
est 


The    opposite    the 
rule 


Happiness  greatest 
under  private 
ownership 


Ignores 
causes 


moral 


tions  that  went  to  Ashantee  or  Abyssinia  or  Zululand  in 
quest  of  the  golden  age  of  plenty.  Do  we  find  anywhere 
even  a  trace  of  such  social  well-being  as  to  be  worthy  of 
comparison  with  the  worst  of  Europe,  and  most  especial- 
ly of  the  United  States?  Do  we  not  find  slavery,  polyg- 
amy, the  most  hard  oppression  and  barbarous  cruelty, 
the  invariable  accompaniment  of  this  primitive  state  of 
existence?  Do  not  famines  and  pestilences  desolate  those 
tribes,  while  human  life  is  scarcely  valued  more  than  that 
of  the  brute?  The  Indians  who  once  roamed  over  our 
own  country,  and  who  still  hold  reserves  especially  in  the 
West  and  IMiddle  West,  were  all  land  communists.  There 
was  never  private  appropriation,  nor  was  there  any  agri- 
culture worthy  of  the  name.  These  rude  tribes  lived  by 
the  chase,  and  a  section  of  country  that  Avould  now  sup- 
port in  plenty  a  million  of  our  people  could  scarcely  sus- 
tain a  thousand  of  these  roaming  savages.  Wherever  we 
find  the  land  unappropriated,  whether  among  Zulus,  In- 
dians, or  the  roving  Tartars  in  Central  Asia,  we  find  a 
savage  and  degrading  condition  of  mankind,  and  we  find 
almost  invariably  that  the  first  step  in  civilization  is  co- 
incident with  the  private  appropriation  and  careful  culti« 
vation  of  the  soil. 

So  far  from  the  sweeping  generalization  of  Mr. 
George  being  true  that  human  misery  and  degradation 
have  sprung  from  private  ownership  of  land,  we  find  from 
actual  survey  of  the  earth  at  the  present  time  that  pre- 
cisely the  opposite  is  true,  that  human  misery  is  deepest 
where  the  land  is  not  appropriated,  and  human  happiness 
and  civilization  most  advanced  where  the  land  is  held  by 
private  owners. 

I  am  aware  that  it  will  be  ob.jected  that  other  than 
agrarian  causes  account  for  the  progress  of  the  advanced 
races.  Christianity,  science  and  trade  have  elevated 
Europe  and  America,  while  Africa  remains  in  primitive 
darkness.  This  is  self-evident  to  an  ordinary  person,  but 
^Ir.  George  ignores  all  moral  causes  for  social  progress, 
or  treats  them  so  lightly  as  to  leave  the  reader  to  infer 
that  the  possession  of  the  soil  is  the  only  vital  question 


PBIVATE    APPROPRIATION   OF   THE  SOIL 


45 


for  a  nation's  welfare;  that  if  this  be  secured  to  the  state, 
all  other  things  will  right  themselves,  and  social  perfec- 
tion be  speedily  reached.  The  retort  to  Mr.  George  is 
obvious.  Why  have  those  communities  that  have  acted 
on  this  principle  (land  communism)  for  thousands  of 
years  remained  in  primitive  barbarism,  while  all  advance- 
ment has  been  made  by  nations  that  have  discarded  them? 
The  reason  is  plain, — because  the}'  are  not  suited  for  man- 
kind in  a  civilized  state.  Whenever  progress  has  attaineu 
a  certain  stage,  the  land  becomes  appropriated  while  at 
the  same  time  arts  and  literature  rise,  cities  are  built  and 
laws  are  formed.  At  that  state  of  human  progress  where 
slavery  and  polygamy  prevail,  where  private  rights  are  at 
the  mercy  of  the  chief  or  despot,  where  agriculture  is  un- 
known and  population  is  kept  down  by  incessant  wars 
and  famines,  we  find  that  the  land  is  unappropriated. 
Here,  no  doubt,  the  advocates  of  Single  Tax  would  offer 
some  excuse  for  such  a  state  of  affairs  other  than  that  of 
the  soil  being  unappropriated.  Perhaps  they  would  say 
that  it  is  on  account  of  the  lack  of  intelligence  of  these 
people;  that  they  are  barbarians — are  uncivilized.  Cer- 
tainly this  is  true.  The  question  is:  Why  are  they  un- 
civilized, and  why  have  they  not  advanced  as  other  once 
uncivilized  nations  have  advanced?  It  is  because  they 
have  not  adopted  methods  which  would  allow  advance- 
ment. I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  a 
quotation  from  Henry  George  found  in  "Progress  and 
Poverty,"  on  pages  479  and  480,  in  speaking  of  the  sav- 
ages and  civilization,  he  says: 


Remained  in  prim- 
itive state 


Slavery  and  polyg- 
amy prevail 


Why  this  state? 


"The  difference  between  the  savage  and  civi- 
lized man  may  be  explained  on  the  theory  that 
the  former  is  as  yet  so  imperfectly  developed  that 
his  progress  is  hardly  apparent,  but  how  upon  the 
theory  that  human  progress  is  the  result  of  gen- 
eral and  continuous  causes  shall  we  account  for 
the  civilizations  that  have  progressed  so  far  and 
then  stopped?  It  cannot  be  said  of  the  Hindoo 
and  of  the  Chinaman  as  it  may  be  said  of  the 
savage,  that  our  superiority  is  the  result  of  a 
longer  education,  that   we  are,   as  it  were,  the 


46 


SINGLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


Result  of  environ- 
ment 


Individuality     rec- 
ognized 


Cause      of      social 
progress 


Primitive   methods 
disappear 


grown  men  of  nature,  while  they  are  the  children. 
The  Hindoos  and  the  Chinese  were  civilized  when 
we  were  savages.  They  had  great  cities,  highly 
organized  and  powerful  governments,  literatures, 
philosophies,  polished  manners,  considerable  di- 
vision of  labor,  large  commerce,  and  elaborate 
arts:  when  our  ancestors  were  wandering  bar- 
barians, living  in  huts  and  skin  tents,  not  a  whit 
further  advanced  than  the  American  Indians. 
While  we  have  progressed  from  this  savage  state 
to  Nineteenth  Century  civilization,  they  have 
stood  still.  If  progress  be  the  result  of  fixed 
laws,  inevitable  and  eternal,  w^hich  impel  men 
forward,  how  shall  we  account  for  this?" 

Evidently  Mr.  George  believes  that  progress  is  the 
result  of  fixed  laws  inevitable  and  eternal  which  impel 
men  forward.  It  is  upon  this  point  that  I  want  to  be 
clearly  understood.  I  hold  that  progress  is  not  the  result 
of  fixed  and  designed  laws ;  that  it  is  the  result  of  en- 
vironment ;  it  is  the  result  of  the  phj'sical  conditions  under 
which  w^e  exist;  that  where  individuality  is  recognized, 
where  there  is  an  incentive  for  individuality,  for  individual 
progress,  where  that  individual  progress  is  in  some  manner 
compensated,  where  the  incentive  is  greatest  for  progress ; 
there  we  find  that  progress  is  made.  Competition — intel- 
lectual competition,  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  human  race.  It  is  upon  this  theory  that 
I  hold  that  civilization  has  not  and  cannot  advance,  as  we 
have  advanced,  where  the  inducements  necessary  for 
mental  competition  have  not  been  held  out  by  the  system, 
habits  or  laws  of  the  country.  Private  appropriation  of 
the  soil  is  one  among,  and  perhaps  the  greatest  of  all 
inducements  that  may  be  offered  by  society  to  the  indi- 
vidual members  that  will  promote  social  advancement. 

AVherever  the  abuses  which  we  find  in  a  state  of  sav- 
agery, of  which  land  communism  is  the  greatest,  are  dis- 
carded, and  tlie  garments  of  civilization  are  put  on. 
we  find  that  private  ownership  of  land  appears;  that  the 
pastoral  or  nomadic  state  is  exchanged  for  the  agricul- 
tural, and  dense  population  takes  the  place  of  thinly 
scattered  tribes. 


PRIVATE    APPROPRIATION    OF   THE   SOIL 


47 


I  am  aware  that  some  exception  may  be  taken  to  this 
large  generalization.  I  cannot  go  into  minute  details  in 
such  a  booklet  as  this.  The  case  of  India  will  present 
itself  as  an  exception  to  some  of  my  readers,  regarding 
which  I  will  only  say  that  the  state  from  time  immemorial 
has  owned  the  soil  of  India  and  leased  it  to  cultivating 
tenants.  But  so  far  has  this  system  been  from  abolishing 
poverty,  that  India  has  always  been  one  of  the  poorest 
countries  in  the  world.  Speaking  broadly,  I  contend  that 
the  theory  of  human  progress  which  I  have  sketched 
comes  nearer  the  mark  than  that  of  Mr.  George.  I  hold 
that  in  place  of  private  appropriation  of  land  causing  the 
deterioration  of  mankind,  it  usually  accompanies  their 
upward  progress,  and  marks  the  first  great  advance  from 
barbarism  to  civilization.  Hence  the  title  of  this  Chap- 
ter— "The  First  Mile-post  on  the  Public  Highway  of  Na- 
tional Progress."  If  this  be  true,  the  main  plank  of  the 
communist  platform  disappears,  and  the  ground  is  clear 
for  looking  at  some  other  side  of  the  question. 


India  and  poverty 


First    milepost 
highway 


SINGLE  TAXER  DISLIKES  THE  TERM 
"COMMUNIST." 

I  am  aware  that  my  Single  Tax  friends  will  object 
to  the  use  of  the  term  "communist."  They  dislike  very 
much  to  have  Single  Tax  called  its  real  name,  and  at- 
tempt to  disguise  the  purpose  of  Single  Tax.  The  reader 
certainly  has  discovered  that  Single  Tax  means  nothing 
else  but  land  socialism,  and  we  are  going  to  call  it  by  the 
right  name. 

But  it  will  now  be  objected,  granted  that  private 
ownership  of  land  is  the  law  of  civilization,  that  the 
methods  by  w4iich  it  was  brought  about  were  unjust ;  that 
large  grants  of  land  were  made  by  kings  to  courtiers  and 
favorites ;  great  estates  were  gained  by  conquest  and  con- 
fiscation ;  might  took  the  place  of  right,  and  the  descend- 
ants of  those  land-robbers  today  should  receive  no  mercy. 
That  means  you.  That  means  every  individual  who  has 
land,  or  who  has  the  hope  or  desire  to  have  land.     This 


Disguise  its  mean- 
ing 


Methods  unjust 


48 


SINGLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


Ancient  times 


North       American 
Indian 


Titles   questioned 


It  is  well   for  hu- 
manity 


is  an  argument  we  constantly  hear.  What  is  the  practi- 
cal worth  of  it?  No  student  of  history  will  deny  that 
there  have  been  many  cruel  conquests,  many  displace- 
ments of  population,  as  weaker  races  were  subdued  by 
stronger,  and  one  incident  that  usually  accompanied  those 
conquests  was  the  allotment  of  the  soil  to  the  conquer- 
ors. In  this  way  the  old  Koman  Empire  was  transferred 
to  the  chieftains  and  warriors  of  the  rude  tribes  that  over- 
ran it.  The  feudal  system  of  modern  Europe  arose  out  of 
these  conquests,  and  the  land  was  conveyed  by  the  chiefs 
to  their  vassals  upon  a  military  tenure.  In  this  way  the 
soil  of  England  changed  hands,  first  upon  the  Saxon, 
then  upon  the  Danish,  and  lastly  upon  the  Norman  con- 
quests. The  white  race  is  gradually  dispossessing  the  col- 
ored race  of  their  land.  In  South  Africa,  in  New  Zea- 
land, in  Polynesia,  and  the  citizens  of  our  own  land  have 
nearly  completed  the  spoilation  of  the  red  Indian  who 
was  once  the  sole  possessor  of  the  North  American  con- 
tinent. 

These  processes  have  usually  been  cruel  and  unjust. 
It  would  be  the  work  of  an  archeologist  rather  than  a 
statesman,  to  investigate  the  original  titles  by  which  most 
of  the  earth's  surface  passed  to  our  ancestors.  None  but 
a  dreamer,  however,  could  seriously  think  that  modern 
titles  should  be  questioned  on  the  ground  that  some  time 
in  the  dim  and  distant  past,  title  was  unjustly  obtained 
to  some  of  our  possessions.  Modern  civilization  is  the 
web,  woven  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  conqueror  and  con- 
quered, and  it  is  well  for  humanity  that  time  which  wears 
away  all  things,  covers  with  the  mantle  of  oblivion  the 
rough  processes  by  which  they  were  knit  together.  Nations 
that  are  wise,  seek  to  bury  the  hatchet.  It  is  only  worthy 
of  children  or  visionaries  to  be  ever  seeking  to  keep  alive 
race  injuries  that  are  irreparable  and  hoary  with  an- 
tiquity. 

Indeed,  those  very  processes  by  which  the  land  of 
most  countries  have  been  transferred  have  been  the  pre- 
lude to  a  higher  civilization. 

I  dismiss  as  the  dream  of  Utopia  the  idea  that  mod- 


PRIVATE    APPROPRIATION   OF   THE  SOIL 


49 


ern  laud  tenures  can  be  upset,  because  ages  ago  they 
originated  in  conquest.  In  England  forty  years  of  undis- 
puted possession  is  adequate  to  give  a  valid  title,  and 
surely  two  or  three  centuries  should  be  enough  to  satisfy 
even  a  legal  purist.  Were  states  to  act  on  the  principle 
that  because  several  hundrd  years  ago  a  grant  was  given 
illegally  and  that  therefore  these  illegal  titles  have  fol- 
lowed the  land  down  to  the  present  owner,  the  world 
would  be  convulsed  with  strife.  Feuds  between  nations, 
races  and  individuals  would  be  endless.  No  settlement 
could  ever  be  regarded  as  final,  and  modern  civilization 
would  perish  as  ancient  civilization  did  in  the  smoke  of  in- 
ternecine strife.  Mr.  George  points  to  the  fact  that  na- 
tions appear  to  advance  about  so  far  and  then  stop  and 
recede ;  that  the  barbarians  of  today  will  be  the  advanced 
nations  in  several  hundred  years  from  now.  This  state- 
ment from  Mr.  George  seems  to  be  borne  out  by  history. 
The  writer  is  inclined  to  believe  that  it  is  just  such  acts 
and  the  result  of  such  acts  as  Mr.  George  would  have  the 
civilization  of  today  indulge  in,  namely,  that  of  land  com- 
munism, that  bars  further  progress,  and  tends  to  deter- 
iorate social  achievement.  In  our  primitive  state  we  were 
land  communists.  In  our  present  state  of  civilization  we 
have  private  ownership  in  land.  To  revert  to  the  land 
communist  system  again  would  very  likely  lead  us  back 
to  the  primitive  state  from  whence  we  came.  Certainly  it 
would  have  such  a  tendency. 

It  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  the  first  conditions  of 
all  national  progress  are  security  for  life  and  property. 
Till  these  are  attained  no  wealth  can  be  accumulated  nor 
any  material  prosperity  enjoyed  by  the  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  wretched  condition  of  the  people  of  Egypt  and 
Turkey  today  arise  from  the  circumstances  that  no  man 
feels  secure  in  the  possession  of  his  property,  and  conse- 
quently few  will  take  the  trouble  to  produce  wealth  of 
which  they  may  any  day  be  robbed.  In  all  countries  that 
enjoy  settled  government,  the  first  property  to  claim  pro- 
tection of  the  laws  is  that  in  land  (the  very  thing  that 
the   Single  Taxer  would  abolish).     All  other  industries 


Civilization   would 
perish 


Deterioration  b  y 
Single  Tax  pro- 
cess 


Security     of     life 
and  property 


Egypt  and  Turkey 


Land    to    be    pro- 
tected 


50 


SINGLE   TAX   EXPOSED 


French  Revolution 


Carnival  of  Blood 


Land  and  labor 


hang  upon  it  and  so  long  as  it  is  liable  to  violent  seizure 
or  disturbance  through  acts  of  legislature,  there  will  be 
no  industry  and  no  trade  of  any  moment.  I  defy  any  of 
the  Single  Tax  advocates  to  point  to  any  country  where 
the  title  of  the  soil  is  violently  attacked,  where  any  trade 
or  industry  flourishes  to  any  extent.  I  cannot  conceive 
anything  more  destructive  to  the  social  welfare  of  any 
peaceful  country  than  to  tear  up  the  foundation  of  all 
property  by  disputing  the  rights  of  individuals  to  the  title 
of  the  soil.  There  may  have  been  times  in  past  history 
when  long  continued  and  cruel  wrongs  have  furnished  a 
partial  justification  for  dispossessing  a  ruling  caste  of  its 
property  and  privileges.  Such  a  time  was  the  first  French 
Revolution.  The  old  French  nobles  had  shockingly  abused 
their  power  for  ages.  The  ancient  regime  was  rotten  to 
the  core.  The  dowai-trodden  people  tore  the  rotten  fabric 
to  pieces,  and  shocked  the  world  with  their  frightful  ex- 
cesses. The  land  system  of  France  was  remodeled  as  a 
consequence  of  that  revolution,  and  no  doubt  a  healthier 
system  arose  from  the  ashes.  But  no  one  save  a  madman 
would  wish  to  see  a  repetition  of  that  carnival  of  blood. 
Nothing  but  the  most  desperate  agony  of  a  nation  could 
justify  or  even  palliate  such  a  convulsion,  and  it  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  that  there  is  any  analogy  between 
the  just  constitutional  government  of  the  United  States 
and  the  grinding  tyranny  of  the  ancient  regime  in  France. 
I  now  pass  to  consider  another  argument  by  which 
the  nationalization  of  the  soil  is  advocated.  The  Single 
Tax  advocate  says  that  land  differs  from  all  other  forms 
of  wealth,  because  it  is  limited  in  quantity,  and  not  the 
product  of  human  labor.  It  should,  therefore,  not  be  the 
monopoly  of  the  few,-  but  the  property  of  the  many.  There 
are  many  elements  that  go  to  make  up  the  value  of  the 
land,  and  the  productiveness  of  the  soil,  and  the  subdu-' 
ing  and  surmounting  of  the  many  difficulties  that  man 
has  had  to  contend  with  is  the  result  of  ages  of  physical 
energy  in  its  many  forms.  In  ancient  times  most  of  this 
country,  as  of  the  continent  of  Europe,  was  covered  witli 
dense  forests,  and  it  has  been  transformed  by  untold  ex- 


PRIVATE    APPROPRIATION   OF   THK  SOIL 


51 


penditure  of  labor  into  the  smiling  gardens  it  now  ap- 
pears. 

I  can  conceive  of  no  equitable  reason  why  this  form 
of  wealth  should  not  have  the  protection  of  the  law  like 
all  other  forms  of  wealth.  All  wealth  may  be  called  stored- 
up  labor,  and  none  is  more  valuable  to  the  community 
than  that  which  makes  two  blades  of  grass  grow  where 
one  grew  before.  Under  a  system  of  tenantry,  the  two 
blades  of  grass  where  one  grew  before,  would  not 
exist.  It  is  the  interest  in  the  home ;  it  is  the 
interest  in  your  own  land,  that  causes  you  to  work 
early  and  late  to  figure  out  how  you  will  make  this 
or  that  little  portion  of  your  field  more  productive ; 
how  you  will  reclaim  that  low  piece  of  ground  that  it  may 
be  productive.  When  adversity  overtakes  the  man  with 
the  home,  or  the  crop  fails  for  one  year — he  does  not  be- 
come discouraged  and  pull  up  and  leave  the  place,  as 
would  a  tenant.  He  hangs  on,  keeps  up  his  courage,  hopes 
that  another  year  conditions  will  be  better,  keeps  the 
farm  in  a  state  of  cultivation,  repairs  the  fences,  and  con- 
tinues his  work,  because  it  is  his  home. 

What  was  it  that  induced  the  hardy  emigrant  to 
settle  in  the  wilds  of  this  country,  to  hew  down  the 
primeval  forests,  and  with  intense  labor  and  privation  to 
turn  the  wilderness  into  a  fruitful  field?  What,  but  the 
hope  that  he  or  his  family  after  him  would  own  a  com- 
fortable homestead?  Had  no  private  property  in 
land  ever  been  permitted,  could  we  conceive  how  the  con- 
tinent of  North  America  would  have  been  settled  ?  How 
would  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  been  spread  over  the  globe? 
What  would  have  drawn  the  emigrant-ship  to  the  deso- 
late shores  of  Australia  and  New  Zealand?  No  magnet 
would  have  charmed  the  hardy  pioneer  of  civilization  but 
the  hope  of  bequeathing  a  freehold  to  his  posterity.  And 
now  after  vast  regions  have  been  settled  on  the  faith  of 
the  solemn  sanction  of  the  state,  it  is  coolly  proposed  by 
the  advocates  of  Single  Tax  to  rob  these  people  or  their 
descendants  of  the  land  on  which  they  have  spent  their 
life-blood,  on  the  ground  that  it  should  never  have  been 


All   wealth  stored 
up  labor 


Interest 
home 


the 


Works  because 
is  his  home 


Desire    to    own    a 
home 


Rob  the  people  of 
their  homsteads 


52 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Same  process  by 
which  other 
countries  were 
settled 


Land  rises  in  value 
in  all  settled 
countries 


Hope  of  improving 
condition  great- 
est safeguard  of 
progress 


granted  to  them.  Could  human  folly  go  further?  Can 
you  think  of  any  process  that  could  be  adopted  by  any 
state  or  nation  that  would  have  a  more  destructive  tend- 
ency for  the  deterioration  of  society  than  to  make  our 
present  land-owners  tenants  of  the  state  instead  of  home- 
owners? The  process  by  which  the  wilds  of  America 
were  reclaimed  within  the  past  two  and  a  half  centuries 
is  the  same  process  by  which  other  countries  were  settled 
at  a  still  earlier  period.  You  will  always  reach  a  point 
at  which  human  labor  gave  its  first  value  to  land,  and 
without  that  labor,  it  would  have  been  as  worthless  as 
portions  of  the  soil  of  South  Africa  are  today. 

I  grant  that  in  old  and  settled  countries  land  rises 
in  value  just  as  the  community  prospers,  but  so  do  most 
other  kinds  of  property.  There  is  increment  in  profes- 
sional, educational,  and  industrial  lines  as  well  as  in  land. 
I  cannot  see  in  justice  why  one  form  of  property  should 
be  singled  out  for  attack,  and  especially  that  property  on 
which  all  other  lines  of  industry,  thrift  and  progress  hang 
— land.  The  motive  that  lead  the  settler  to  clear  the 
primeval  forests  was  partly  the  expectation  that  popula- 
tion would  follow  in  his  track  and  raise  the  value  of  the 
investment.  As  stated  in  a  previous  chapter,  but  for  that 
hope,  he  would  hardly  have  forfeited  all  the  comforts  of 
civilized  life.  Would  it  be  fair,  after  he  has  cleared  the 
pathway  through  the  jungles  for  the  more  timid  follow- 
ers, to  deny  him  the  legitimate  fruit  of  his  enterprise? 
Surely  one  of  the  greatest  stimulants  to  material  progress 
is  the  knowledge  that  good  orderly  government  will  in- 
crease the  value  of  property.  It  affords  the  strongest  in- 
ducements to  all  the  propertied  classes  in  a  community  to 
avoid  warfare  and  civil  strife.  Take  away  from  the  own- 
ers of  property  all  hope  of  improving  their  position,  and 
you  abolish  one  of  the  greatest  safeguards  of  peaceful 
progress. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ALL  PROPERTY  OF  EXCHANGEABLE  VALUE 
SHOULD  BE  TAXED. 


Under  our  present  system  and  present  land  laws,  land 
is  property,  and  I  hold  that  private  property  in  land  is 
consistent  with  and  necessary  to  man  in  a  state  of  civili- 
zation. Under  our  present  system  of  exchange  which  is 
the  product  of  civilization  and  the  outgrowth  of  the  di- 
vision of  labor,  we  have  several  classes  of  property.  Land 
owned  by  individuals  may  be  considered  first,  as  it  is 
upon  land  and  land  values,home  values,  that  all  other  in- 
dustries rest.  Cattle  and  other  animals  that  are  bought 
and  sold  on  account  of  their  usefulness  for  food  or  other- 
wise, may  be  classed  as  another  kind  of  property".  Stocks, 
bonds  and  obligations  to  pay  may  be  classed  as  another 
kind.  The  products  of  the  soil  coupled  with  labor,  form 
another  class.  Goods,  wares  and  merchandise,  manufac- 
tured articles  of  all  kinds,  whether  manufactured  by 
machinery  or  by  hand  constitute  another  class.  Books 
containing  the  mental  efforts  and  energy  of  individuals 
may  be  classed  as  another  kind  of  property.  All  the 
property  coming  under  the  various  classifications  are  es- 
sential to  man  in  a  state  of  society.  One  is  exchangeable 
for  another  by  and  through  the  process  of  our  system  of 
exchange.  If  an  individual  desires  a  manufactured  ar- 
ticle of  any  description,  he  may  sell  the  product  of  his 
labor,  or  may  exchange  an  article  of  value  that  he  has 
for  money  which  is  the  blood  of  commerce,  and  with  that 
money  purchase  any  other  article  he  may  desire  that  is 
obtainable.  The  various  articles  which  may  be  consid- 
ered the  product  of  man  are  the  result  of  the  require- 
ments of  society.  Consequently  they  are  in  demand. 
Therefore  are  exchangeable  for  other  commodities  that 
are  in  demand,  according  to  the  tastes  and  desires  of  the 


All  property  of 
exchau  g  e  a  1}  1  e 
value  should  be 
taxed 


54 


SINGLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


By  discrimination 
force  lands  back 
into  hands  of 
Government 


various  individuals  of  society  which  are  extremely  numer- 
ous. When  an  article  is  no  more  desired  by  society,  the 
manufacture  of  it  ceases,  and  in  its  place  a  more  import- 
art  article  is  manufactured.  Thus  the  process  of  the 
growth  and  demand  of  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
various  manufactured  articles  desired,  and  even  neces- 
sary, for  man  in  a  state  of  society.  If  a  man  owns  cattle 
and  is  desirous  of  owning  some  other  kind  of  property, 
he  may  sell  his  stock  for  money,  and  take  the  money  and 
purchase  other  kinds  of  property  which  he  desires.  If  he 
has  land  and  w^ants  to  convert  that  land  into  money  and 
with  that  money  travel  abroad,  he  can  do  so.  Or  if  he 
has  goods,  wares  and  merchandise  of  any  description  that 
is  desired  by  society,  he  can  convert  his  goods,  wares  and 
merchandise  into  money,  and  with  that  money  purchase 
land,  automobiles,  jewelry,  or  airships  if  he  so  desires. 
He  will  have  no  difficulty  in  finding  those  who  have  the 
articles  he  desires  and  w^ho  are  willing  and  anxious  to 
part  with  them  for  a  certain  stipulated  value.  If  an  in- 
dividual has  money,  he  will  have  no  difficulty  whatever 
in  finding  others  w^ho  own  land,  to  part  with  that  land  for 
a  certain  amount  of  his  money.  Hence  it  should  be 
obvious  to  the  reader  that  all  kinds  of  property  which 
are  desired  by  society  and  which  can  be  exchanged,  one 
for  another,  should  be  treated  alike  in  the  eyes  of  the 
law.  Any  discrimination  against  one  kind  of  property 
would  have  a  tendency  to  injure  that  particular  class.  It 
would  be  perfectly  natural  for  an  individual  to  desire 
and  hold  that  class  of  property  that  was  favored  by  law. 
Mr.  George  reasoned  this  out.  Therefore  he  schemed  to 
discriminate  against  land,  and  by  the  process  of  this  dis- 
crimination force  land  back  into  the  hands  of  the  govern- 
ment. It  is  a  question  for  the  people  to  determine 
whether  or  not  society  w^ould  be  better  off  under 
a  system  of  land  tenure  where  the  government  would  be 
the  owner  and  the  occupants  the  tenants;  or  whether  it 
would  be  best  for  society  to  continue  under  the  present 
system,  allowing  the  individuals  to  have  private  property 
in  land,— or  to  put  it  very  plain,  own  the  land  for  them- 


PHOPERTY    OF    EXCHANGEABLE    VALUE 


55 


selves  and  not  for  another.  As  long  as  we  treat  land  as 
property,  there  should  be  no  discrimination  against  it. 
There  is  no  justice  in  placing  the  burden  of  taxation  upon 
land.  There  could  be  but  one  reason  for  it,  namely,  that 
of  discriminating  against  it  and  finally  confiscating  the 
present  values  of  it. 

Henry  George  claims  that  man  is  a  land  animal  and 
therefore  cannot  live  without  the  use  of  the  land,  and 
that  the  land  should  belong  to  all  of  the  people  because 
of  man  being  a  land  animal;  that  man  can  no  more  live 
without  the  use  of  the  land  than  he  can  live  without  air 
and  water.  Therefore  land  should  be  free  as  air  and 
water.  Of  course  we  agree  with  Mr.  George  that  man  is 
a  land  animal,  and  that  he  cannot  subsist  without  the 
products  of  the  soil  any  more  than  he  could  live  without 
free  access  of  air  and  the  use  of  water.  That  is  no  argu- 
ment against  the  private  ownership  of  land.  Mr.  George 
says  that  the  man  who  owns  the  land  under  our  present 
system  virtually  owns  those  who  must  occupy  the  land. 
He  fails  to  recognize  that  man  is  a  social  as  well  as  a 
land  animal,  and  that  social  conditions  are  as  necessary 
for  man  in  a  state  of  society  as  the  use  of  the  land  or  the 
air  and  the  water.  In  order  to  get  this  thought  more 
clearly  before  the  reader  it  will  be  necessary  to  go  back 
into  the  early  history,  in  fact,  beyond  the  period  when 
there  was  history,  to  show  the  progress  and  growth  of 
society. 

To  illustrate  this  thought  we  will  concede  that 
land  is  the  hub  of  the  wheel  of  society.  Man  must  draw 
his  support  from  the  land ;  that  in  his  undeveloped  state — 
in  his  tribal  state,  land  was  practically  the  only  essential 
to  his  well-being ;  but  when  the  division  of  labor  was  first 
adopted,  social  progress  then  commenced.  When  man 
evoluted  to  that  state  of  intelligence  where  he  saw  that 
a  division  of  labor  was  better  for  his  well-being,  the  fish- 
erman said  to  the  rude  boat-builder,  "You  build  the  boats 
and  I  will  fish;"  and  these  two  said  to  a  third.  "You  till 
the  soil  while  one  builds  the  boat  and  another  fishes;" 
and  to  the  fourth,  "You  make  the  bows  and  arrows  while 


No  justice  in  plac- 
ing burden  of 
taxation  on  land 


No  argument 
against  private 
0  w  n  e  rship  of 
land 


Division    of    labor 
advisable 


66 


SINGLE  TAX  EXPOSED 


Division  of  labor 
grew  with  pro- 
gress of  man 


Is  land,  designated 
as  the  hub  of  the 
wheel  of  society, 
of  greater  im- 
portance than 
other  factors 
enumerated 
which  go  to 
make  the  com- 
plete  wheel? 


the  fifth  will  do  the  hunting;"  and  to  the  sixth,  "You 
make  the  crude  implements  necessary  to  till  the  soil." 
Thus  the  division  of  labor  was  started,  and  as  the 
wants  of  the  colony  grew,  the  greater  became  the  division 
of  labor.  The  land  was  no  more  important  to  this  crude 
state  of  society  than  the  individual  who  made  the  boat 
for  the  fisherman  to  use  in  fishing.  It  was  no  more  im- 
portant than  the  man  who  made  the  bows  and  arrows 
with  which  to  shoot  the  game,  nor  was  it  of  any  more 
importance  than  the  man  who  made  the  crude  plow  with 
which  to  till  the  soil,  or  the  man  who  made  the  yoke  to 
put  on  the  ox,  or  the  harness  to  put  on  the  horse  with 
which  to  pull  the  plow.  Neither  were  all  of  these  of  more 
importance  to  that  primitive  state  of  society  than  the 
medicine-man  who  had  given  his  time  to  the  study,  even 
though  very  imperfect,  of  the  herbs  necessary  for  the 
betterment  of  the  physical  condition  of  man.  And  so  this 
division  of  labor  grew,  as  man  progressed  intellectually 
and  socially.  It  has  been  a  long  continuous  growth,  and 
each  and  every  new  invention  has  added  to  the  wants  of 
man  and  have  therefore  become  a  necessity  in  the  state 
of  society  that  he  then  or  now  exists  in.  This  process 
has  gone  on  and  on.  The  greater  the  wants  of  society, 
the  greater  the  division  of  labor;  and  the  greater  the  di 
vision  of  labor,  the  greater  were  the  warts  of  society. 

Now,  the  various  lines  of  industry,  the  various  ar- 
ticles of  wearing  apparel,  the  many  thousand  articles  ^f 
value  that  are  desired  by  the  individuals  of  society,  form 
the  other  portions  of  the  wheel.  Machinery  of  all  de- 
scription that  is  today  used,  transportation  facilities,  great 
manufacturing  plants,  banks,  telephone  and  telegraph  sys- 
tems, in  fact,  the  whole  superstructure  of  society  are  the 
spokes,  the  felloes,  and  tire  of  the  wheel.  Now  I  submit 
TO  you :  Is  the  land  which  we  have  designated  the  hub  of 
any  greater  importance  to  man  in  a  state  of  society,  than 
the  numerous  other  factors  which  we  have  just  enume- 
rated, and  which  we  may  call  the  spokes  the  felloes  and 
tire  of  the  wheel?  The  hub,  or  the  land,  would  supply 
the  wants  of  man  in  a  state  of  savagery,  but  not  in  a 


PKOPEBTY    OF    EXCHANGEABLE    VALUE 


57 


state  of  development.  For  this  reason  I  hold  that  there 
may  be  many  thousand  lines  of  pursuits  of  trade  and 
combination  of  various  interests  that  may  be  promoted  by 
individuals,  that  could  be  of  more  harm  to  society  than 
any  possible  monopoly  of  land. 

In  the  growth  and  development  of  our  commerce, 
men  and  women  have  had  their  choice  to  till  the  soil  or 
to  fit  themselves  for  the  various  positions  necessary  for 
the  carrying  on  of  commerce ;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
during  the  past  two  hundred  years  the  United  States, 
England,  Germany  and  France,  and  I  think  I  may  be 
safe  in  saying,  in  all  nations,  that  the  industrial  and  pro- 
fessional pursuits  have  offered  a  greater  field  for  intel- 
lect, enterprise  and  thrift,  than  has  the  tilling  of  the  soil. 
The  movement  has  been  from  the  country  to  the  city ; 
men  and  women  have  preferred  to  take  their  chances  for 
accumulation,  or  if  not  for  the  accumulation  of  wealth, 
for  the  greater  pleasures  that  city  life  affords, — for  the 
pleasure  of  the  theatre,  of  excitement  and  society.  It  is 
not  all  of  life  to  be  the  possessor  of  any  great  amount  of 
worldly  goods  of  any  nature.  There  are  many  other 
phases  to  life  than  possession.  Farms  have  been  neg- 
lected because  they  have  not  been  as  profitable,  all  things 
considered,  as  many  other  lines  in  which  individuals  may 
become  interested.  The  compensation  for  the  operation 
of  the  farm  has  not  been  inviting.  Hence,  and  perfectly 
natural,  the  young  man  and  the  young  woman  have  sought 
such  environment  as  seemed  most  profitable  and  pleasant 
to  them. 

Under  our  system  of  exchange,  as  before  stated, 
if  one  accumulated  goods  or  money,  they  could  at  any 
time  convert  it  into  land.  There  is  no  monopoly  of  land. 
The  majority  of  people  who  own  land  are  perfectly  will- 
ing to  let  it  go  for  a  fair  consideration.  They  can  take 
the  meney  and  engage  in  other  pursuits  that  are  equally 
as  profitable  as  that  of  tilling  the  soil,  and  much  more 
pleasant.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  you  would  today  divide 
the  land  in  the  United  States  and  give  each  individual 
their  portion,  it  would  not  be  twenty-five  years  until  con- 


Other  p  u  r  s  u  its 
have  offered 
greater  field 
than  tilling  of 
the  soil 


Many  other  phases 
to  life  than  pos- 
session 


No    monopoly     of 
land 


58 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Those  not  satisfied 
would  sell  their 
land  and  engage 
in  other  pursuits 


Folly  to  argue  that 
all  the  evils  of 
life  could  be 
remedied  by  an 
act  of  legisla- 
tion 


ditions  would  be  about  the  same  as  they  are  today.  Those 
who  wanted  to  experiment  and  were  not  satisfied  with  the 
tilling  of  the  soil  would  sell  their  land.  One  would  want 
to  go  into  a  grocery  store,  or  perhaps  he  would  want  to 
go  into  the  automobile  business.  Another  would  want  to 
sell  his  land  and  go  into  the  city  where  he  could  have  the 
greater  pleasures  of  society;  where  he  could  wear  fine 
clothes  and  make  a  good  appearance,  at  least  while  his 
money  would  last.  Others  would  want  to  convert  their 
land  into  money  and  travel,  the}^  w^ould  want  to  see  the 
sights  of  the  cities  and  perhaps  of  foreign  countries ;  and 
so  on,  until  each  and  every  one  satisfied  to  the  extent  of 
their  ability  so  to  do,  their  curiosity,  their  peculiar  de- 
sires, their  peculiar  ideas,  etc.  A  majority  of  them  would 
prove  a  failure  in  the  enterprise  in  which  they  embarked. 
Ninety  per  cent  of  the  business  enterprises  undertaken 
prove  failures.  These  people  then  w^ould  not  be  the  pos- 
sessors of  soil.  They  would  have  spent  their  money. 
Ninety  per  cent  of  their  undertakings  have  failed  there- 
fore they  Avould  be  in  what  we  call  the  w'orking  classes. 
This  w^ould  be  the  process  of  w^orking  back  to  the  present 
state  of  affairs. 

It  is  folly  to  argue  as  the  Single  Taxer  does — 
that  improvidence,  bad  judgment,  ill  health,  intem- 
perance, insobriety,  stupidity,  vicious  temperament, 
ignorance,  laziness,  dishonestj^,  bad  management,  diseased 
brains,  physical  and  intellectual  delinquency,  lack  of  fore- 
sight, and  other  imperfections  of  mind  and  body  that 
could  be  mentioned,  can  be  overcome  and  righted  by  an 
act  of  legislation.  All  the  physicial  and  mental  ailments 
above  recited  play  their  part  in  the  unequal  distribution 
of  wealth ;  they  play  their  part  and  are  responsible  for 
the  many  sad  conditions  that  we  see  in  society.  ^Ir.  George 
would  have  you  believe  that  all  of  these  ills  are  traceable 
to  and  have  their  being  in  the  private  ownership  of  land. 

As  long  as  we  have  the  various  stages  of  intellectual- 
ity we  may  expect  to  have  a  like  variation  in  the  posses- 
sion of  property.  Any  legislation  seeking  to  restrict  the 
advancement  of  one  because  others  are  unfortunate  and 


PROPERTY    OF    EXCHANGEABLK    VALUE 


59 


cannot  keep  up  with  those  who  are  in  tlie  advance,  woukl 
have  a  tendency  to  hold  all  down  alike,  therefore  would 
destroy  all  ambition  to  advance.  This  may  best  be  seen 
in  a  state  of  savagery,  or  the  primitive  state  from  which 
we  have  progressed.  The  lower  down  in  the  scale  of 
humanity  you  go,  the  nearer  you  come  to  an  equality. 
I  should  like  very  much  to  see  the  ills  of  society  abolished 
were  it  possible.  We  must  not,  however,  allow  our  emo- 
tion and  sympathy  to  distort  and  warp  our  judgment. 
The  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  seems  to  hold  good 
in  all  mineral,  vegetable  and  animal  creation. 

Henry  George  tried  to  figure  out  a  system  that  would 
make  all  men  equal.  In  doing  so  he  failed  to  recognize 
that  the  great  inequalities,  both  social  and  financial  are 
very  largely  due  to  the  differences  between  individuals. 
not  that  the  possessor  of  vast  wealth  is  wiser  or  has  more 
brains  than  those  who  have  no  possession  whatever,  for 
such  is  not  the  case.  The  philosopher  is  seldom  a  rich 
man.  The  professors  of  our  universities  are  seldom  rich 
men.  The  great  thinkers  of  our  age  are  not  rich  men. 
They  have  used  their  talents  for  the  acquisition  of  knowl- 
edge. The  same  is  true  of  musicians,  physicians  and  sur- 
geons. They  have  used  their  time  and  energy  in  becom- 
ing skilled  in  the  arts  of  music  and  human  anatomy.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  great  sculptors  and  painters  and  of 
clergymen,  scientists  and  political  economists.  They  liavc 
given  their  time  and  energy  to  the  acquisition  of  knowl- 
edge. Therefore,  they  have  but  little  of  the  worldly  pos- 
sessions. 

I  believe  enough  has  been  said  along  this  line  to 
give  the  reader  a  clear  insight  into  social  conditions; 
that  enough  has  been  said  to  clearly  show  that  no  process 
of  taxation,  and  especially  that  of  Single  Tax  which  would 
confiscate  all  private  property  in  land  thereby  destroying 
the  very  foundation  upon  which  civilization  has  advanced. 
can  ever  bring  about  the  extirpation  of  pauperism  and 
the  equalization  of  the  distribution  of  wealth.  Society 
will  always  have  its  troubles  as  long  as  there  is  such  a 
vast  difference  in  human  nature.    The  great  readers  along 


Must  not  allow 
emotion  to  dis- 
place    judgment 


Great  thinkers  are 
not  rich  men; 
men  are  not  bom 
equally  endowed 
with  different 
faculties 


No  process  of  tax- 
ation can  abolish 
pauperism  and 
equalize  distri- 
bution of  wealth 


60  SINGLE  TAX   EXPOSED 

the  line  of  political  economy  have  recognized  this  fact. 
Herbert  Spencer  when  a  young  man,  reasoning  without 
experience,  attempted  to  write  a  purely  ethical  work  on 
political  economy.  The  title  of  the  work  was  "Social 
Statics."  He  advocated  the  nationalization  of  land  by 
compensating  the  owners  for  their  land.  After  forty 
Nationalization  of  years  of  experience,  when  his  judgment  was  tempered  by 
the  cold  stubborn  facts  and  realities  of  life,  he  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  his  early  writings  were  wrong,  and 
in  speaking  of  the  nationalization  of  land,  he  says : 

"Until  there  is  a  great  change  in  human  na- 
ture, the  nationalization  of  land  would  be  imprac- 
ticable." 


land 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  DOG-IN-THE-MANGER  CRY  OF  THE  SINGLE 
TAX  ADVOCATES. 


The  advocates  of  Single  Tax  try  to  work  upon  the 
prejudice  of  the  people  and  arouse  their  envy,  on  the 
ground  that  there  is  a  monopoly  in  land;  that  land- 
holders are  reaping  an  unjust  reward ;  that  they  are  tak- 
ing from  society  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  the  un- 
earned increment  or  the  increase  in  the  value  of  the  land, 
which  does  not  belong  to  them.  They  especially  cite  to 
you  conditions  in  the  city.  They  point  out  that  certain 
lots  in  the  city  have  increased  greatly  in  value ;  that  this 
value  should  not  go  to  the  owners  but  should  be  taken 
by  society;  that  the  taxes  should  be  raised  upon  these 
lots  and  not  upon  the  buildings  as  is  the  case  at  the 
present  time.  They  tell  you  that  the  vacant  lots  in  the 
city  should  be  improved;  that  the  present  owners  should 
be  made  to  improve  them  or  sell  them ;  that  the  unplatted 
section  of  a  city  such  as  maj'  be  found  in  Portland 
and  other  cities  in  the  State  of  Oregon  should  be 
made  to  pay  a  heavy  tax  thereby  forcing  the  owners 
to  sell  the  ground  or  to  subdivide  it  and  sell  it  out  in  lots 
so  that  improvements  may  be  made  thereon ;  they  tell 
you  that  all  the  vacant  lots  or  plots  of  ground  in  city  or 
country  should  be  forced  to  improvement ;  that  those 
owning  the  timber  lands  should  be  made  to  pay  excessive 
taxes  on  their  holding's.  They  thus  continue  enumerating 
all  of  the  undeveloped  sections  of  your  country  which 
should  be  at  once  brought  into  a  state  of  cultivation  and 
perfection. 

Let  us  analyze  such  a  system  in  a  city  such  as  Port- 
land. While  T  am  not  so  well  versed  in  Portland  as  I  should 
like  to  be.  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  there  are  three  vacant 


Monopoly  in  land, 
What  is  it? 


Forcing 
ments 


improve- 


62 


SINGLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


Single  Tax  fright- 
ens 


More   houses   than 
tenants 


Unprofitable 
buUd 


to 


Hasten  to  sell 


Development  to  be 
gradual 


lots  to  one  that  is  improved  by  buildings.  Now,  suppose  that 
the  owners  of  these  lots  Avere  confronted  with  this  con- 
dition: From  and  after  this  date  all  of  the  taxes  neces- 
sary to  operate  the  city  government  of  Portland  are  going 
to  be  raised  from  land  values  only.  This  would  practi- 
cally double  the  assessment  upon  the  vacant  lots.  Your 
first  thought  would  be  to  improve  the  lots.  Upon  investi- 
gation, however,  you  tind  there  are  already  sufficient 
houses  in  Portland  to  accommodate  the  demand  for  ten- 
ants. You  find  the  same  to  be  true  not  only  of  residences 
but  of  all  other  kinds  of  buildings.  You  decide  that  even 
if  your  buildings  will  not  be  taxed  under  the  new  sys- 
tem, it  will  still  be  unprofitable  for  you  to  put  up  a 
building  and  have  it  unoccupied.  Now  you  must  either 
build  under  such  conditions,  or  you  must  pay  the  in- 
creased tax  upon  your  land. 

As  a  logical  business  man  your  first  thought  would 
be,  "I  will  pay  the  increased  taxes  rather  than  to  build 
where  there  is  no  demand  for  the  building."  Your 
second  thought  will  be,  "I  cannot  afford  to  con- 
tinue paying  the  high  rate  of  taxes  on  those  lots 
under  such  a  system,  knowing  that  the  ultimate  end 
and  purpose  of  the  Single  Tax  System  is  the  confiscation 
of  the  value  in  the  land."  So  you  hasten  to  sell  your 
lots,  and  offer  them  at  a  greatly  reduced  price,  thinking 
you  will  unload  this  burden  on  to  some  one  who  is  not 
familiar  with  the  condition.  The  man  to  whom  you  make 
the  offer  is  considering  the  matter  in  the  same  light  that 
you  have,  and  he  too  refuses  to  buy,  knowing  as  you  do. 
that  the  ultimate  end  and  purpose  of  Single  Tax  was 
that  the  state  would  take  all  the  rental  value,  therefore 
leaving  no  individual  value  in  the  property.  He  reasons. 
and  justly  so,  that  buildings  can  only  come  and  be  profit- 
able as  the  city  grows,  and  that  the  growth  of  the  city 
can  be  no  greater  than  the  growth  of  the  country,  and 
that  the  growth  of  the  country  must  be  consistent  with 
all  other  things  and  follow  the  natural  law  of  develop- 
ment, the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  He  reasons  that  all 
such   development  must   come   gradually,   that  you   may 


THE    DOG-IN-THE-MANGER   CRY 


63 


judge  the  future  by  the  past;  that  it  would  be  entirely 
unreasonable  to  think  of  forcing  all  undeveloped  sections 
of  the  country  to  a  state  of  perfection  in  a  few  years; 
and  he  says  to  you,  "No,  I  don't  want  your  property." 
And  again  you  reduce  the  value,  and  so  on  goes  the 
process  of  declining  land  values,  until  the  vacant  lots 
first  revert  to  the  state ;  then,  of  course  the  taxes  must 
fall  more  heavily  upon  the  occupied  land,  and  as  the 
tax  falls  more  heavily  upon  the  occupied  lots,  they,  too, 
decline  in  value.  It  should  be  apparent  to  the  reader 
that  this  process  will  continue  until  Single  Tax  has  done 
the  work  laid  out  for  it  to  do,  namely,  that  of  abolish- 
ing all  values  in  land,  the  land  therefore  reverting  to  the 
government. 

FARM  LANDS. 
When  we  apply  the  theory  of  Single  Tax  to  agricul- 
tural lands,  it  works  in  the  same  manner.  It  would 
either  force  all  of  the  undeveloped  portions  of  the  coun- 
try into  a  state  of  productiveness  at  once,  or  the  vacant 
lot  would  be  the  first  to  revert  to  the  government.  If 
it  should  have  the  effect  of  forcing  the  undeveloped  por- 
tions of  the  country  into  productiveness,  the  result  would 
be  an  over-production,  because  there  has  been  an  ample 
production  under  the  present  condition,  and  if  there 
should  be  a  forced  production,  there  must  of  necessity  be 
an  over-production,  thus  lessening  the  value  of  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  farm,  therefore  reducing  the  price  of  the  land 
in  proportion  as  it  reduces  the  products  of  the  land.  In 
addition  to  this  process,  however,  is  the  fact  that  the 
object  of  the  process  and  the  purpose  of  the  system  is 
the  final  destruction  of  land  values.  This  hastens  the  end 
by  reason  of  the  discouragement  to  those  who  now  own 
the  land. 

TIMBER  LANDS  OF  OREGON. 
I  am  aware  that  a  great  prejudice  exists  towards  the 
man  or  men  who  hold  large  sections  of  timber  lands  in 
the  State  of  Oregon ;  that  there  is  a  desire  on  the  part  of 
some  individuals  to  call  this  land  monopoly;  that  they 
want  these  timber  lands  to  bear  a  very  large  proportion 


Forced 
ment 


develop- 


Single    Tax    com- 
pletes Its  work 


Over   -  productive 
farm  lands 


64 


SINGLE  TAX   EXPOSED 


Timber  lands 


Over  -  stimulation 
causes  reaction 


Preservation 
timber  in 
states 


of 
other 


of  the  taxes ;  that  they  want  to  make  owners  of  these 
timber  lands  put  in  sawmills,  logging  camps,  logging 
railways,  and  all  of  the  other  necessary  expenditures  that 
go  with  the  logging  industry.  They  want  these  great 
resources  of  the  country  fully  developed — immediately 
developed;  that  is,  they  think  they  want  them  developed. 
It  is  entirely  illogical  and  unreasonable  to  expect  that 
the  great  forests  of  timber  in  Oregon  can  or  should  be 
logged  off  and  the  logs  cut  into  lumber  other  than  by 
process  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  and  the  natural 
growth  of  the  country.  But  suppose  that  the  owners  of 
these  vast  acres  of  timberland  should  attempt  to  do  what 
the  Single  Tax  advocates  would  have  them  do,  i.  e.,  to 
at  once  proceed  to  cut  down  the  timber,  log  it  off,  and 
saw  it  up  into  lumber,  it  would  not  require  a  great  deal 
of  business  experience  to  at  once  see  that  there  would  be 
an  over-production  of  lumber ;  that  the  price  of  lumber 
would  fall ;  that  the  industry  would  be  paralyzed,  and 
that  the  attempt  would  be  a  failure.  But  suppose  that 
it  would  not  be  a  failure,  and  that  there  was  a  foreign 
market  for  all  of  the  timber  sawed  into  lumber.  The  re- 
sult would  be  that  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  the  tim- 
ber of  the  State  of  Oregon  would  be  destroj^ed;  that  in 
the  meantime  there  would  have  been  a  false  stimulant 
given  to  the  influx  of  population  on  account  of  such  an 
unnatural  condition,  and  when  the  timber  was  exhausted 
a  reaction  would  take  place  which  would  be  a  compensa- 
tion for  the  unnatural  acts.  The  industry  that  would 
have  been  an  asset  for  perhaps  many  decades  would,  un- 
der the  operation  of  the  Single  Tax  ideas,  have  in  a  few 
3'ears  perished. 

In  the  states  of  Wisconsin  and  Michigan  it  is 
not  a  question  of  forcing  the  timber  owners  to  get  rid 
of  their  timber  hurriedly.  It  is  now  a  question  before 
the  legislature  and  has  caused  a  great  deal  of  concern, 
what  method  they  may  employ  to  preserve  the  forests 
and  use  them  no  faster  than  is  necessary.  They  therefore 
have  advocated  that  a  tax  on  the  stumpage  shall  replace 
a  tax  on  the  standing  timber  and  land  values,  thereby 


THE    DOG-IN-THE-MANGER   CRY 


65 


relieving  the  land-owner  from  excessive  taxes  which  has 
a  tendency  to  force  the  owner  to  get  rid  of  his  timber. 
They  want  to  discourage  the  gigantic  destruction  of  their 
forests  rather  than  to  encourage  it  as  the  Single  Taxer 
would  do  in  the  State  of  Oregon.  The  people  of  Oregon 
should  not  entertain  the  prejudice  there  seems  to  be  re- 
garding the  timberland  owners.  This  land  was  all  taken 
up  first  by  individuals.  Most  all  of  it  was  taken  for  the 
express  purpose  of  converting  it  into  money,  selling  it 
out  to  firms  and  corporations  whom  they  knew  were  buy- 
ing timberlands,  and  receiving  the  compensation  for  it  in 
proportion  to  the  amount  of  timber  on  the  land.  So  your 
citizens  and  the  citizens  of  other  states  have  come  to  Ore- 
gon and  located  these  lands  receiving  their  patents  from 
the  Government,  and  have  sold  it  to  the  companies  and 
corporations,  receiving  the  agreed  price.  This  money  has 
come  into  your  state  by  reason  of  your  citizens  taking  up 
and  selling  this  land.  The  money  has  gone  into  the  va- 
rious industries  throughout  your  country.  It  has  been  a 
great  factor  in  developing  many  lines  of  industry  in  your 
state.  It  has  played  its  part,  and  it  is  not  consistent  to 
ask  now  that  the  people  who  bought  these  timber  lands 
in  good  faith,  expecting  to  hold  them  perhaps  for  many 
years  until  they  were  warranted  in  logging  the  land  off 
as  fast  as  there  was  a  demand  for  the  timber,  to  place 
upon  them  an  extra  burden  of  taxation  which  was  not 
contemplated  at  the  time  the  purchase  was  made.  It 
would  not  be  so  bad  if  it  was  simply  an  extra  tax,  but 
when  the  purpose  is  final  confiscation,  it  becomes  dis- 
honest and  a  breach  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  a 
stable  and  reliable  government,  namely,  that  of  repudia- 
tion of  contracts. 

The  law  of  competition,  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand, must  govern  the  development  of  industries.  It  is 
impossible  to  legislate  against  the  interests  of  the  people 
who  own  these  timberlands  and  not  legislate  against  the 
interests  of  the  whole  state.  Society  is  so  closely  linked  to- 
gether that  when  you  enact  a  law^  that  destroys  the  prop- 
erty rights  of  one.  it  will  undoubtedlv  do  the  same  to  all. 


Preserve 
ests 


the    for- 


Timber  lands  sold 


Purchased  in  good 
faith 


Law    of    competi- 
tion 


Injury  to  one — in- 
jury to  all 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

SINGLE   TAX   UNJUST,   UNREASONABLE   AND 
INCONSISTENT. 


I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  un- 
reasonable, unjust  and  illogical  method  of  Single  Tax. 
I  want  to  point  out  just  how  the  operation  of  Single  Tax 
does  harm  and  works  a  hardship  upon  the  poor  rather 
than  upon  the  rich.  It  has  been  quite  clearly  shown  that 
all  property  is  equal,  or  should  be  equal  in  the  eyes  of 
the  law,  because  one  class  of  property  can  be  quickly 
converted  into  another  class.  Under  the  application  of 
Single  Tax  the  man  who  owns  money  escapes  taxation. 
Inasmuch  as  money  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  trans- 
action of  business,  for  the  carrying  on  of  commerce  and 
all  lines  of  industry,  it  is  therefore  a  very  important 
factor.  Consequently  the  tendency  would  be  for  an  in- 
dividual who  had  lands,  merchandise  or  any  other  class 
of  property,  to  convert  it  into  money ;  especially  land,  as 
land  under  Single  Tax  would  have  to  bear  all  of  the 
burden,  and  money  and  other  classes  of  property  would 
escape.  Now,  when  one  converts  his  property  into  money, 
he  could  in  turn,  and  perhaps  would,  loan  his  money  to 
the  various  individuals  who  must  have  its  use  and  serv- 
ice, receiving  a  compensation  for  it.  His  returns  for  the 
loan  of  this  money  would  possibly  net  him  many  thou- 
sands of  dollars.  This  individual  owns  two  lots  on  the 
comer  of  A  and  B  streets  on  which  he  has  a  $25,000 
residence.  The  residence  is  built  from  the  returns  of  his 
loaned  money.  The  house  is  elegantly  furnished,  pos- 
sibly the  furniture  cost  $10,000.  He  has  two  automobiles 
which  were  purchased  by  the  revenue  from  his  loaned 
money.  He  has  his  servants  and  chauffeur.  He  enjoys 
the  city  police  protection ;  he  enjoys  the  parks,  boulevards 


Equality  in  ey«s  of 
law 


Money  the  blood  of 
commerce 


The  loan  shark 


Comparison 


68 


SIKQLE  TAX    EXPOSED 


Enjoys  the  privil- 
eges and  pays 
no  more 


Is  this  just? 


A  soliloquy 


Needs    no    protec- 
tion 


Consistency,     thou 
art  a  jewel! 


Should   he    escape 
taxes 


and  the  driveways;  he  is  a  gentleman  of  leisure  and  has 
all  of  the  comforts  of  life  that  money  can  buy.  He  pays 
a  small  rental  for  his  office  which  is  located  in  a  forty- 
two  story  skyscraper. 

Across  the  street  from  the  residence  of  this  money- 
loan  shark  lives  a  night  watchman  who  receives  for  his 
pay  $60  a  month  and  who  has  two  lots  of  the  same 
dimensions  as  the  loan  shark's,  on  which  he  has  a 
modest  cottage  valued  at  $900.  Under  the  applica- 
tion of  Single  Tax  the  tax-collector  comes  around  and 
calls  on  the  man  that  has  the  elegant  home,  for  the 
taxes.  The  taxes  on  his  two  lots  amount  to  $35,  which 
is  a  mere  trifle.  He  goes  across  the  street  to  the  night 
watchman  and  says  to  him,  "Your  taxes  are  thirty-five 
dollars."  It  is  a  hard  struggle  for  him  to  pay  that 
amount,  for  it  is  a  little  more  than  half  a  month's  salary. 
He  makes  inquiry  of  the  tax-collector  what  taxes  the  man 
across  the  street  pays  on  his  two  lots.  "Thirty-five  dol- 
lars," is  the  answer.  "And  mine  thirty-five  dollars,  just 
the  same  as  his?"  The  tax  collector  replies,  "That  is 
the  system  we  are  now  working  under."  The  night 
watchman  then  says,  "I  have  no  benefit  of  the  parks  and 
the  boulevards  and  the  driveways;  I  have  no  automobiles; 
my  house  is  scantily  furnished ;  I  need  none  of  the  police 
protection  that  the  man  across  the  street  requires ;  I  have 
no  diamonds,  no  jewelry,  no  silverware,  no  five  hundred 
thousand  dollar  necklace,  or  anything  of  that  descrip- 
tion which  needs  police  protection ;  I  do  not  require  the 
fire  protection  that  the  man  across  the  way  does.  Must 
I  contribute  as  much  to  the  support  of  the  government  of 
the  City  of  Portland  (or  any  other  city)  as  the  man 
across  the  way?"  I  appeal  to  the  good  judgment  of  the 
reader.  Is  there  any  justice,  is  there  any  consistency  in 
such  a  sj'stem?    Certainly  not. 

Now  let  us  consider  another  illustration.  Suppose 
that  A  owns  a  line  of  steamboats,  sailing  vessels,  or  any 
other  transportation  line.  He  has  a  large  income  from 
his  business.  Under  the  application  of  Single  Tax,  he 
too  will  escape.    He  will  pay  no  taxes  on  three,  four,  five 


FATAL   DEFECTS   OF  SINGLE  TAX 


69 


or  six  hundred  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  appliances 
which  bring  him  a  great  revenue  and  to  which  the  public 
must  pay  tribute.  He  occupies  the  same  position  as  the 
man  who  loans  the  money.  He  pays  no  more  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  city  government  or  the  state  govern- 
ment, possibly  not  as  much,  as  the  man  who  works  in 
the  switch-yards  of  the  Northern  Pacific  Railway  in  Port- 
land, or  the  widow  who  works  in  a  laundry  or  may  do 
washing  to  support  her  children. 

Take  for  a  further  illustration  j'our  department 
stores,  your  manufacturing  plants,  your  transfer  com- 
panies, the  owners  of  your  magnificent  buildings  which 
bring  to  them  a  great  income  through  their  rentals.  We 
could  multiply  the  illustrations  already  made  by  many 
different  lines  of  industry  that  offer  the  same  compari- 
son. Time  and  space  will  not  permit,  however,  to  do  this. 
I  only  desire  for  the  reader  to  get  the  idea  of  the  fallacy 
of  such  a  system. 

To  further  illustrate  the  inconsistency  of  the  opera- 
tion of  Single  Tax  and  how  it  will  work  a  hardship  upon 
both  producer  and  consumer — the  very  classes  that  Mr. 
George  intended  to  relieve— under  Single  Tax  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  soil  and  of  labor  will  not  be  taxed.  The  De- 
partment of  Agriculture  reports  that  the  farmer  receives 
but  50  per  cent  of  the  price  which  consumers  pay  for 
farm  products.  This  shows  that  from  the  time  the  prod- 
ucts leave  the  farm  until  they  reach  the  consumer,  100 
per  cent  is  added  to  the  ralue  by  reason  of  carrying 
charges  and  handling  charges  of  every  nature,  together 
with  the  profits  that  the  middlemen  receive.  Inasmuch 
as  the  price  the  consumer  has  to  pay  is  twice  that  which 
the  farmer  receives,  it  must  be  apparent  that  there  is 
room  for  manipulation  and  excessive  profits  after  the 
goods  leave  the  farm  and  before  they  reach  the  consumer. 
Under  our  present  system,  personal  property  is  subject 
to  taxation.  Under  the  application  of  Single  Tax  it 
will  be  exempt.  This  will  offer  a  still  greater  inducement 
for  those  who  manipulate  the  distribution  of  the  various 


The  laboring  man 
or  woman 


Multiply   these   il- 
lustrations 


Department  of  Ag- 
riculture  report 


Would   be  exempt 
under  Single  Tax 


70 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Commodities     cor- 
nered 


Controlling 
market 


the 


Advance  the  price 


Would  go  scot-free 


Millions    made    in 
soap  busineBS 


staple  commodities  or  products  of  the  farm  and  products 
of  manufacture. 

As  an  illustration,  only  in  the  latter  part  of  1911, 
sugar  was  manipulated,  and  advanced  to  an  exorbitant 
high  figure.  It  was  not  due  to  the  fact  that  there  was 
a  scarcity  of  sugar.  It  was  simply  a  manipulation  of 
the  market,  the  controlling  of  the  product  of  the  soil. 
The  consumers  paid  the  bill.  Again,  wheat,  oats,  corn, 
cotton,  flour,  and  many  staple  articles  are  thus  con- 
trolled by  combinations  made  between  various  individuals 
together  with  their  vast  accumulations  of  wealth,  money, 
etc.  The  prices  of  these  commodities  may  possibly  be 
lowered  for  a  time — what  is  known  as  "bearing  the  mar- 
ket." When  the  market  is  low  enough,  or  as  low  as 
they  can  force  it,  they  begin  buying  and  get  control  to 
a  great  extent  of  these  commodities,  then  advance  the 
price,  thereby  reaping  enormous  profits.  The  consumer 
pays  the  penalty.  So  with  manufactured  articles ;  so  with 
rubber,  rubber  clothing,  coffee  and  tea,  and  many  other 
lines  too  numerous  to  mention,  that  the  genius  and  intrigue 
of  man  could  get  hold  of  and  manipulate  to  the  detri- 
ment of  society.  Yet  under  the  application  of  Single  Tax 
their  holdings  and  their  profits  would  go  scot-free.  They 
would  pay  no  part  of  the  running  expenses  of  the  gov- 
ernment, yet  enjoying  greater  privileges  than  those  who 
were  paying  the  operating  expenses.  The  field  is  so 
broad  that  it  would  require  a  book  on  this  particular 
phase  of  the  Single  Tax  question  to  thoroughly  present 
the  many  unjust  and  illogical  features  in  the  application 
of  the  System. 

In  connection  with  this  phase  of  the  question  I  must 
not  fail  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Fels, 
the  man  who  has  spent  his  millions  to  promote  this  sys- 
tem, has  made  his  money  from  the  manufacture  of  soap. 
He  has  not  made  it  from  the  increased  value  of  land. 
Please  bear  in  mind  that  Mr.  Fels  has  made  a  good  many 
millions  of  dollars  out  of  a  manufacturing  plant — an  in- 
dustry that  under  Single  Tax  would  pay  no  revenue  to 
the   government.     I   would  not  accuse  Mr.  Fels  of  pro- 


FATAL   DEFECTS    OF   SINGLE   TAX 


71 


moting  this  system  for  the  express  purpose  of  exempt- 
ing his  manufacturing  plant  from  taxation,  because  he 
is  spending  more  money  than  he  would  gain  thereby.  It 
is  a  good  illustration,  however,  to  show  you  that  there 
may  be,  and  no  doubt  are,  many  thousand  different  lines 
of  manufacture  that  are  equally  as  profitable  as  the 
manufacture  of  soap.  Under  the  application  of  Single 
Tax  these  profitable  enterprises  would  pay  no  taxes.  Land 
would  have  to  bear  all  of  the  burden. 


Would  not-  accuse 
Mr.  Fels 


THE    CONSUMER   PAYS  THE    BILL. 

The  Single  Taxers  appeal  to  the  working  classes  and 
those  who  are  unfortunate,  and  say  to  them:  "You  cre- 
ate these  many  million  dollars'  worth  of  value  in  land, 
why  not  take  it?  Why  give  it  to  another?"  Such  a 
statement  upon  first  thought  appeals  to  the  individual. 
Who  pays  the  bills  now?  Who  pays  the  tax  that  is  col- 
lected on  the  various  commodities?  The  consumer  does. 
It  cannot  be  otherwise.  When  an  article  is  manufactured, 
the  cost  of  the  raw  material  is  first  taken  into  considera- 
tion, then  the  cost  of  the  transportation  of  the  raw  mate- 
rial to  the  place  of  manufacture,  then  the  cost  of  manu- 
facturing, rent,  interest,  insurance,  labor,  deterioration  of 
plant  and  all  of  the  incidental  expenses  are  figured  and 
become  a  part  of  the  expenses  that  attach  to  the  manu- 
factured article ;  then  a  certain  profit  is  added  to  the 
price  of  the  article ;  then  cartage  to  the  railway  or  trans- 
portation line  is  added ;  then  follows  the  freight  and  the 
cartage  at  its  destination  together  with  the  wholesalers' 
expenses  and  their  charges ;  then  the  expenses  follow  to 
the  retailer,  with  his  profits  and  expenses  added ;  finally 
to  the  consumer.  He  pays  the  final  total  charge  that  has 
attached  to  the  article  so  purchased. 

The  individual  who  hires  an  attorney  pays  the  office 
rent,  pays  all  of  his  office  expenses.  Those  unfortunate 
enough  to  require  the  services  of  a  physician,  pay  the 
expenses.  And  so  you  might  single  out  each  item  which 
goes  to  make  up  the  volume  of  business  of  the  country, 
and  the  burden  finally  falls  upon  the  consumer.     Now 


Who  pays  the  final 
blU? 


Costs  attach  to  ar- 
ticles 


There  is  no  escape; 
the  expense  fol- 
lows  the   article 


72 


SINGLE  TAX   EXPOSED 


Consumer    also    a 
producsr 


Producer     also     a 
consumer 


Change     in     form 
only 


these  consumers  are  producers  as  well.  We  must  ever 
keep  this  in  mind.  I  consume  the  products  of  another 
one's  labor;  he  consumes  the  products  of  my  labor.  This 
is  the  result  of  the  division  of  labor,  the  result  of  com- 
merce which  follows  the  division  of  labor.  Under  the 
application  of  Single  Tax  we  will  have  the  same  process. 
The  consumer  must  and  will  pay  the  final  bill.  Under 
either  system  the  consumer  and  the  producer 
pay  the  bill.  Now,  what  difference  would  there  be  in 
the  cost  of  the  manufactured  article,  whether  the  owner 
of  the  plant  in  which  a  certain  article  was  manufactured 
paid  $2000  taxes,  $1000  of  which  was  on  the  ground  so 
occupied  and  $1000  on  the  building,  machinery  and  con- 
tents. The  same  $2000  in  either  event  would  attach  to 
the  total  amount  of  goods  manufactured  and  sold  from 
that  plant  during  that  year.  So  the  consumer  who  pur- 
chased these  articles  would  neither  profit  nor  lose  in  this 
transaction.  The  cost  of  transportation  would  be  no 
more  or  less  on  account  of  the  application  of  Single  Tax 
as  far  as  taxes  were  concerned  and  the  relative  portion  of 
expense  attached  to  the  article  the  consumer  purchases. 


How  it  worked  in 
1911 


In  1912  the  same 


No    difference    to 
consumer 


Let  us  follow  these  manufactured  articles  still 
further.  They  reach  the  wholesale  house.  In  1911  this 
particular  wholesale  house  paid  $3000  total  taxes  on 
goods,  building  and  ground.  This  year,  1912,  under  the 
application  of  Single  Tax  the  taxes  will  be  relatively  the 
same  amount,  but  on  the  ground  only.  There  is  still  no 
difference  in  the  price  of  the  article  and  the  expenses 
that  attach  to  it.  He  may  follow  these  articles  on  until 
they  reach  the  consumer,  and  they  are  practically  the 
same  as  under  the  old  system.  That  being  true,  there  has 
been  no  relief  to  the  consumer  whatever.  The  advocates 
of  Single  Tax  howl  and  rant  and  clamor  about  taxing 
industry — taxing  the  products  of  labor.  Isn't  it  clear  to 
the  reader  that  the  product  of  labor  has  been  taxed  just 
as  much  under  the  Single  Tax  System  as  under  the  old 
system?  It  makes  no  difference  whether  you  tax  the 
article  itself  or  whether  you  tax  to  a  greater  extent  the 


FATAL   DEFECTS    OF   SINGLE   TAX 


73 


ground  that  the  man,  machinery,  or  manufacturing  plant 
must  occupy  while  he  is  manufacturing  the  article. 

To  carry  this  illustration  further  let  us  take  the 
farm.  The  Single  Taxers  tell  the  farmers  he  is  punished 
— penalized — every  time  he  puts  an  addition  on  his  house 
or  adds  a  new  piece  of  furniture  for  his  convenience,  or 
when  he  builds  a  barn,  even  a  henhouse — that  he  is 
punished  each  year  for  it,  and  it  therefore  discourages 
him  rather  than  encourages  him.     Now  let  us  see.     In 

1911  the  taxes  on  Mr.  Johnson's  farm  were  $200.     In 

1912  we  will  admit  that  the  taxes  may  be  slightly  less 
under  the  application  of  Single  Tax,  say  $175.  In  1911 
there  was  a  tax  on  horses,  the  cows  and  all  of  the  live- 
stock, on  the  buildings  and  all  of  the  improvements  on 
the  farm.  In  that  year,  as  the  Single  Taxers  say,  there 
was  a  penalty  placed  upon  improvements.  In  1912  the 
penalty  has  been  abolished.  Personal  property  has  been 
exempted  from  taxation,  but  the  extra  amount  less  a 
small  percentage  has  been  placed  upon  the  land.  The 
burden  has  only  been  shifted. 

Let  us  follow  one  article  from  the  farm  to  the  con- 
sumer and  see  if  it  has  made  any  difference  to  him.  In 
1911  the  cow  was  taxed;  the  food  that  she  ate  was  taxed; 
the  barn  that  she  was  housed  in  was  taxed ;  the  milk- 
buckets  that  were  used  in  the  dairy  and  all  of  the  dairy 
appliances  were  taxed;  the  wagon  and  the  horse  that 
pulled  the  wagon  to  the  market  were  taxed ;  and  milk 
sold  for  20c  a  gallon.  In  1912  the  cow,  the  food  that  she 
ate,  the  barn,  the  dairy  and  its  supplies,  the  wagon,  and 
the  horse  that  conveyed  the  milk  to  the  market  are  ex- 
empt from  taxation,  but  still  the  milk  sells  for  20c  a 
gallon.  The  farmer  gets  no  more  profit  from  his  coav 
than  in  1911.  Industry  has  not  been  encouraged  at  all — 
the  consumer  has  not  profited  one  cent.  "We  have  only 
changed  the  percentage  in  form.  The  practical  results 
are  the  same.  This  illustration  may  be  applied  to  any 
commodity  or  product  of  the  farm. 

Now  the  application  of  Single  Tax  has  done  the 
consumer  no  good,  and  it  has  done  the  farmer  no  good. 


All     the     same — 
groand  or  labor 


Taxes  in  1911 


Exemption  has  not 
changed  results 


Following  the  cow 


Industry    not     en 
couraged 


74 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Who      has      been 
helped?    Nobody 


Who  has  been  in- 
jured? Every- 
body 


Land  as  a  reserve 
fund 


Security  all  gone 


Would   do   It   slow 


A  poor  exens* 


It  has  not  helped  the  manufacturer ;  it  has  not  helped  the 
producer.  Then  what  has  it  done?  It  has  lowered  the 
price  of  farm  lands,  village  and  city  lots  throughout  the 
land.  It  has  created  unrest;  destroyed  confidence,  and 
paralyzed  industry.  Whenever  land  values  decline,  all 
lines  of  inustry  and  trade  decline  with  it.  According  to 
the  Government  report,  there  are  in  the  United  States 
land  values  to  the  extent  of  $65,000,000,000.  Land  values 
have  always  been  recognized  as  the  most  staple  of  all 
values,  therefore  have  become  the  basis  of  a  volume  of 
business  perhaps  three  times  greater  than  its  value.  Land 
acts  as  a  reserve  on  which  credit  money  is  issued.  It  oc- 
cupies the  same  place  in  commerce  as  the  gold  bullion  in 
the  bank  on  which  the  gold  certificates  are  issued.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  land  values  are  and  should  be  more  re- 
liable than  gold  reserves,  because  land  canot  be  de- 
stroyed. Under  the  process  of  Single  Tax,  the  $65,000,- 
000,000  of  land  values  would  finally  vanish,  and  with  it 
the  great  volume  of  business  which  has  been  transacted 
on  securities.  As  land  values  would  decline  mortgages 
would  be  foreclosed  unless  payment  was  made  when  due. 
New  mortgages  could  not  be  secured.  Why  should  an 
individual  be  willing  to  loan  money  upon  land  when 
there  was  a  system  in  operation  that  had  for  its  final 
purpose  the  confiscation  of  land  values  by  the  process  of 
all  the  potential  rent  being  taken  by  the   government? 

I  am  aware  that  the  Single  Tax  theorists  will  claim 
that  they  do  not  intend  to  carry  their  system  thus  far ;  that 
it  will  take  many  years  to  reach  the  final  goal.  I  reply 
that  in  my  judgment,  that  makes  the  system  so  much 
the  worse.  It  would  be  much  better,  if  we  are  to  finally 
reach  that  point  w^here  land  values  are  to  be  abolished, 
to  reach  it  at  once  and  adjust  the  affairs  of  the  govern- 
ment and  the  people  to  the  new  conditions,  rather  than  to 
start  in  on  an  era  of  declining  land  values  and  declining 
industries  which  would  necessarily  follow.  It  would  be 
a  poor  excuse  for  a  criminal  to  say  that  he  had  adminis- 
tered a  dose  of  poison,  but  that  it  would  take  a  long 
time  to  kill  the  individual.     The  crime  would  be  just  as 


same 


FATAL   DEFECTS    OF   SINGLE   TAX  75 

great  as  though  tlie  dose  administered  would  produce  Result  to  be  the 
death  at  once.  The  crime  would  be  just  as  great  in  the 
eyes  of  the  law,  and  so  I  believe  that  the  crime  of  intro- 
ducing a  system  which  will  destroy  land  values  gradually 
but  certainly,  is  just  as  immoral  and  unjust  as  though  it 
produced  the  same  result  in  a  shorter  space  of  time. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  SINGLE  TAXERS  CRY  "LAND  MONOPOLY." 


Within  the  past  ten  years,  according  to  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Fels  which  appeared  in  the  ]\[arch  number  of 
''Everybody's  Magazine,"  he  purchased  in  Essex,  Eng- 
land, fifty  miles  from  London,  700  acres  of  a  deserted 
farm  at  $50  an  acre.  He  purchased  another  deserted 
farm  within  24  miles  from  London  for  $35  an  acre.  I 
cannot  imagine  that  there  is  very  much  of  a  land  mo- 
nopoly even  in  England,  which  of  all  countries  there 
would  be  a  monopoly  of  land,  if  in  any,  when  land  is  to 
be  purchased  at  $35  an  acre.  In  fact,  Mr.  George  cites 
England  in  "Progress  and  Poverty"  as  a  country  owned 
and  controlled  by  landlords  and  great  landed  estates.  I 
imagine  that  the  farmers  of  Oregon  would  ask  more  for 
their  land  than  $35  an  acre,  especially  within  24  miles  of 
Portland,  or  Salem,  Eugene,  or  many  other  cities  of 
Oregon. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  no  land  monopoly  any- 
where in  the  world,  unless  it  is  in  such  countries 
where  the  land  is  owned  by  the  state,  which  our  Single 
Tax  friends  would  have  us  do  in  Oregon.  In  order  for 
there  to  be  a  land  monopoly  which  will  work  an  injury 
to  the  citizens  generally,  the  conditions  must  be  such 
that  the  products  of  the  soil  are  unreasonably  high ;  that 
the  consumer  must  pay  too  much  in  proportion  to  other 
things  and  commodities  for  the  products  of  the  soil  and 
the  privilege  of  occupying  certain  portions  of  the  soil. 
In  other  words,  when  the  operation  and  the  tilling  of 
the  land  bring  no  greater  reward  or  compensation  for  the 
labor  thus  expended  in  producing,  cultivating  and  har- 
vesting the  products  of  the  soil  than  other  industries  and 
lines  of  liuman  energy,  there  can  be  no   land  monopoly 


Fels  buys  land 


Land  monopoly  at 
$36  per  acre 


Oregon     farmer 
laughs 


C  0  m  p  e  t  i  tion  In 
farm  products 


Comparison   of   re- 
turns of  labor 


78  SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 

where  there  are  no  greater  returns  to  the  land  owner  or 
the  land  operator  than  other  lines  of  industry  requiring 
the  same  amount  of  effort  and  energy.  To  show  that  the 
advocates  of  Single  Tax,  and  especially  the  teachings  of 
Mr.  George  in  his  book  "Progress  and  Poverty"  are  in- 
correct, that  instead  of  land  or  the  products  of  land  in- 
creasing and  operating  against  the  interests  of  the  poor,  I 
want  to  quote  you  statistics  showing  the  opposite  to  be 
the  fact. 

Geo.  Gunton  in  "The  Forum"  of  1887  quotes  figures 

Rentals      declined     from  Tookes'  History  of  Prices,  v.  1,  and  of  Barton  and 
50  per  cent  ' 

Wade   and  Wade's  History  of  the  English  Middle  and 

Working  Classes  and  in  speaking  of  the  proportion  of 

the  products  of  the  soil  that  was  retained  by  the  owner, 

he  says : 

"Just  before  the  close  of  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury, according  to  Davenport,  the  total  agricul- 
tural produce  including  pasture  and  forest  land, 
was  estimated  at  £21,790,000,  and  the  total  rent 
£9,480,000,  or  a  little  over  45  per  cent  of  the 
produce.  About  a  century  later,  1779,  according 
to  Arthur  Young,  the  produce  w^as  estimated  at 
£72,826,827,  and  the  gross  rental  £19,200,000,  or 
about  26  per  cent.  Sixty-three  years  later,  1842 
and  1843,  McCulloch's  Statistical  Account  of  the 
British  Empire,  page  553,  estimated  the  gross 
agricultural  product  at  £141,606.857  and  the  total 
rental  £37,795,905,  or  26.69  per  cent  of  the  total 
produce ;  and  in  1882,  forty  years  later,  accord- 
ing to  Mulhall,  the  total  produce  was  £270,000,- 
000,  and  the  total  rental  £58,000,000,  or  I21/2  per 
cent  of  the  produce.  Thus  the  actual  rent  roll 
from  agricultural  land  has  increased  over  600  per 
cent.  The  total  produce  of  the  land  during  tlin 
same  period  has  increased  1250  per  cent.  In 
other  words,  the  proportion  of  the  total  product 
of  agriculture  paid  in  rent  has  fallen  from  45  per 
cent  to  211/2  per  cent,  or  more  than  one-half.  He 
continues,  if  we  include  land  used  for  manufac- 
turing and  commercial  purposes,  we  shall  find  the 
same  result  to  be  no  less  striking.  According  to 
the  authorities  already  referred  to  at  the  close  of 
the  Revolution,  1688,  the  annual  total  produce  of 
all  kinds  was  in  round  numbers  £43,000,000.  and 


SINGLE  TAXEBS   CRT   "LAND   MONOPOLY" 


79 


the  total  rents  £10,000,000,  or  a  little  over  23  per 
cent  of  the  produce,  and  in  1882  the  aggregate 
annual  produce  was  estimated  at  £1,200,000  and 
the  total  rent  roll  at  £131,468,288,  or  only  10.9 
per  cent  of  the  total  produce.  In  other  words, 
while  the  aggregate  produce  has  increased  nearly 
2800  per  cent,  the  aggregate  rent  has  arisen  only 
about  100  per  cent.  Thus  instead  of  rent  swal- 
lowing the  whole  gain  during  the  last  200  years, 
relatively  to  the  total  wealth  produced,  it  has 
fallen  over  55  per  cent." 


This  same  line  of  reasoning  justified  by  the  facts 
may  be  continued  through  all  lines  of  industry  in  the 
United  States.  The  production  of  cotton,  the  production 
of  the  goods  manufactured  from  cotton,  and  many  other 
lines  have  shown  the  same  relative  reduction  in  the  cost 
of  production  and  distribution.  The  Single  Tax  theorists 
point  to  the  fact  that  a  greater  portion  of  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  are  not  land  owners,  therefore  a  land 
monopoly;  that  the  majority  are  tenants,  and  the  minor- 
ity the  landlords.  This  is  no  argument  against  the  sys- 
tem of  private  ownership  of  land.  Many  of  our  Avealthiest 
people  have  no  land.  It  is  not  because  they  cannot  get 
it.  It  is  because  they  don't  w^ant  it.  There  are  other 
lines  more  profitable  to  them.  The  Jews  as  a  class  are 
the  shrewdest  business  man  we  have.  As  a  rule  they  are 
tenants,  and  not  land  owners.  They  can  get  greater  re- 
turns for  the  money  invested  in  commercial  pursuits  than 
they  can  to  have  it  invested  in  city  lots,  houses  or  farm 
lands.  Like  Mr.  Fels,  they  can  make  more  out  of  the 
soap  business  than  they  can  in  the  land.  This  cry  of 
land  monopoly;  this  cry  that  the  poor  people  are  being 
strangled  to  death  by  the  land-grabber  and  the  landlord 
is  not  justified  by  the  facts  when  the  question  is  thor- 
oughly analyzed  and  the  true  cause  of  poverty  is  dis- 
covered. It  will  not  be  found  in  the  private  ownership 
of  the  land,  but  from  causes  very  largely  inherent  in  the 
human  race  and  which  will  ever  be  with  society  and  be 
a  source  of  pain  and  discomfort. 


Tenants  of  United 
States 


Other      pursuits 
more   profitable 


Inherent  in  the  hu- 
man family 


D 
en 

X 


CHAPTER   X. 

HOW  SINGLE  TAX  WOULD  BAR  PUBLIC 
IMPROVEMENTS. 


Under  the  stimulating  influence  of  our  present  sys- 
tem, individuals  privately  or  collectively,  for  the  sake  of 
profit  and  gain,  undertake  great  enterprises — great  de- 
velopment schemes.  As  an  illustration,  take  the  improve- 
ment that  is  now  going  on  in  Portland  by  Lewis  &  Wiley. 
They  purchased  a  slough  or  low  piece  of  ground  covered 
with  water  near  the  old  exposition  site.  They  also  pur- 
chased a  portion  of  the  hill  lying  west  of  Portland.  They 
have  spent  large  sums  of  money  in  sluicing  the  dirt  from 
this  hill  to  the  valley  below,  filling  up  this  low  ground, 
thus  reclaiming  a  large  tract  of  waste  land,  at  the  same 
time  reclaiming  a  large  portion  of  the  hill,  making  it  a 
very  beautiful  and  attractive  residence  district.  The  pri- 
vate fortunes  of  these  individuals  are  risked  in  this  en- 
terprise. They  had  but  one  object,  that  was  that  the  land 
would  increase  in  value  and  that  all  of  this  increase 
would  belong  to  them.  They  would  not  onlj'  get  paid  for 
the  amount  of  labor  and  money  thus  expended  and  for 
the  interest  on  the  money  and  the  risk  so  taken,  but  they 
would  get  even  more.  They  expected  at  least  a  handsome 
profit  for  their  enterprise,  and  no  doubt  they  will  get  it, 
unless  perchance  ]\Iultnoiiiali  County  should  adopt  Sin- 
gle Tax.  In  that  event  the}-  would  be  cheated  of  the 
reward  that  is  justly  due  them  for  the  enterprise  thus 
displayed.  I  hold  that  it  is  perfectly  right  and  just  that 
these  men  should  receive  the  full  benefit  of  the  increase 
in  the  value  of  the  land  thus  reclaimed.  Tinder  the  ap- 
plication of  Single  Tax  the  work  never  would  have  com- 
menced. There  would  have  been  no  incentive  for  such 
improvements,   and   certainly   it   would    be   a   very   hard 


Improvements  i  n 
Portland  exam- 
ple 


No  inducements  for 
reclamation 


Investments    made 
for  gain 


Have  a  Just  claim 
for  the  incre- 
ment 


82 


SIXGI-E   TAX    EXPOSED 


Single  Tax  would 
bar  improve- 
ments 


Improvements    ne- 
cessary 


Impediments 
moved 


Regrade    districts 


Improvements  cre- 
ate values 


matter  if  the  land  belonged  to  the  state,  to  persuade  the 
State  Legislature  to  embark  on  such  an  undertaking. 
Consequently  the  development  of  this  particular  tract  of 
ground  would  not  be  accomplished  under  the  Single  Tax 
system. 

To  carry  this  illustration  further  to  make  it  appli- 
cable to  any  such  an  enterprise,  let  us  suppose  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  City  of  Portland  (or  any  other  city  in  the 
State  of  Oregon)  required  certain  streets  to  be  regraded 
and  great  cuts  and  fills  to  be  made ;  that  certain  hills  or 
high  elevations  were  in  the  way  of  the  progress  of  the  city  ; 
that  the  grades  on  account  of  these  high  elevations  were 
too  great  to  permit  of  traffic  and  that  the  regrading  of 
these  hills  was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  further  de- 
velopment and  growth  of  the  city.  Under  the  present 
system  of  improvements  in  cities  and  towns,  districts  are 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the  cost  of  such 
improvements.  Now,  suppose  we  get  together  all  of  the 
property  owners  in  the  district  which  comprise  that  sec- 
tion of  the  city  where  these  cuts  and  fills  and  high  eleva- 
tions are  to  be  removed  and  the  district  made  accessible 
for  city  traffic  and  business,  and  we  shall  say  to  these 
lot  owners:  "For  the  regrading  of  these  streets  and  the 
tearing  down  of  the  hills,  the  filling  up  of  the  low  lands, 
the  entire  cost  to  this  district  will  be  thirty  million  dol- 
lars. This  entire  section  has  been  formed  into  a  district — a 
regraded  district.  All  of  the  lots  in  this  district  will  have 
to  bear  their  proportionate  share  of  this  expense.  Now, 
you  lot  owners  will  have  this  bill  to  pay,  each  lot  paying 
in  proportion  to  its  location.  When  this  improvement  is 
made,  however,  great  advantages  will  accrue  to  this  lo- 
cality, and  your  lots  will  improve  greatly  in  value.  Are 
you  willing  to  spend  your  accumulated  wealth  in  a  fur- 
ther outlay  for  these  improvements?"  The  question  is 
discussed  by  a  number  of  the  leading  propert}'  owmers 
and  finally  they  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  will  be  a 
profitable  move,  and  upon  motion,  the  lot  owners  agree 
unanimously  that  they  will  undertake  the  work,  the  con- 
sideration   l)eing    that    the    unearned    increment,    as    the 


WOULD  BAR   PUBLIC   IMPROVEMENTS 


83 


Single  Taxer  calls  it,  will  compensate  them  for  the  money 
thus  expended,  the  risk  thus  taken  and  the  interest  on 
the  money.    They  are  satisfied  to  proceed. 

Dr.  Eggleston,  W.  S.  U'Ren  and  Mr.  Cridge  ask  per- 
mission to  address  the  meeting.  They  say  to  these  lot 
owners :  "In  the  year  1912  at  the  November  election  they 
are  going  to  pass  a  Single  Tax  measure  that  all  of  the 
taxes  in  Multnomah  County  (or  in  whatever  county  this 
might  happen  to  be)  will  be  raised  from  land  values  only, 
and  that  it  is  the  intention  and  purpose,  it  is  the  object  of 
their  peculiar  system,  to  take  the  full  rental  value  of  the 
lands  in  the  course  of  a  number  of  years;  that  the  selling 
value  of  their  land  will  of  necessity  disappear  under  such 
a  system,  inasmuch  as  the  increment  will  be  absorbed  by 
the  rental  so  taken ;  that  the  increment  that  they  have 
enjoyed  under  the  old  system  will,  under  the  new  cease 
to  exist."  And  they  further  say  to  these  lot  owners: 
"Now,  if  under  the  circumstances  Avhich  Ave  have  just 
described  to  you,  you  desire  to  proceed  with  your  im- 
provement, go  ahead,  but  remember,  the  increase  in  the 
value  of  the  lots,  and  the  present  value  of  the  lots  will 
disappear  under  the  application  of  our  system — Single 
Tax." 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  remarks  of  the  three  gentle- 
men just  mentioned,  after  a  few  prominent  lot  owners 
had  expressed  themselves,  it  was  decided  by  an  unani- 
mous vote  that  the  undertaking  would  not  be  started ; 
that  under  such  conditions  they  did  not  want  to  spend 
any  more  of  their  money,  but  would  rather  sell,  if  such 
a  thing  was  possible,  what  little  interest  there  might  be 
in  the  land.  Such  a  conclusion  would  be  perfectly  natural 
and  logical.  This  illustration  should  be  sufficient  for  the 
reader  to  multiply  its  application  in  all  lines  of  improve- 
ments, in  all  lines  of  progress  where  the  individual  has 
been  enjoying  a  return  for  his  money.  You  should  be 
able  to  see  at  a  glance  that  such  a  system  is  destructive 
of  the  very  principles  that  have  caused  our  nation  and 
country  to  grow  beyond  that  of  any  other.  Under  our 
laws  we  have  offered  all  the  encouragement  possible  to 


Entitled    to    more 
than  interest 


Single       Taxers 
throw  cold  water 


No  improvements 
under  new  sys- 
tem 


Improvements    not 
undertaken 


Such  a  system 
would  destroy, 
not  construct 


84 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


Not  attractive  for 
investors 


Mortgages 
closed 


fore- 


Less 
pay 


work,      less 


Industrial 
sion 


depres- 


individual  enterprise,  thrift  and  enei-gy.  Under  the  op- 
eration of  Single  Tax,  as  stated  in  previous  chapters,  land 
values  will  decline,  and  as  land  values  decline,  investors 
pass  by  communities  and  localities  where  land  values  are 
declining,  and  seek  a  place  for  investment  where  there 
is  a  chance  for  profit.  As  before  stated,  mortgages  would 
be  at  once  foreclosed,  renewals  would  be  refused,  loans 
on  land  for  improvements  would  be  entirely  out  of  the 
question.  When  land  values  begin  to  decline,  confidence 
is  shaken,  money  is  withdrawn,  and  as  money  is  with- 
drawn, industry  ceases,  labor  becomes  in  less  demand, 
therefore  the  price  of  labor  declines  as  the  greater  num- 
ber of  laborers  apply  for  the  limited  number  of  positions ; 
the  price  of  commodities  declines  and  the  price  of  every- 
thing declines  with  it.  Under  such  a  process  commercial 
conditions  would  become  almost  unbearable.  It  would  be 
a  calamity  for  Oregon  or  the  State  of  Washington  or  any 
other  state  in  the  T^uion.  and  a  national  calamity  for  the 
entire  United  States  to  adopt  Single  Tax. 


CHAPTER  XL 


VANCOUVER,  B.  C,  HAS  NOT  SINGLE  TAX. 


Inasmuch  as  the  Single  Tax  advocates  point  to  the 
British  Columbia  cities  as  having  Single  Tax,  I  feel  that 
it  is  necessary  to  give  some  facts  regarding  Victoria  and 
Vancouver,  B.  C,  relative  to  their  system  of  taxation. 
The  writer  visited  Vancouver  in  the  month  of  January. 
]912,  for  the  express  purpose  of  investigating  their  fiscal 
system.  I  found  that  the  citizens  of  Vancouver  were  not 
at  all  familiar  with  the  theor}-  of  Single  Tax.  When 
asked  their  idea  of  its  application  in  Vancouver,  they 
knew  but  little  about  it.  They  said  they  knew  the  build- 
ings were  not  taxed  and  that  they  were  having  prosper- 
ity; that  property,  land,  was  increasing  rapidly;  that 
rents  were  very  exorbitant,  and  the  prices  of  commodities 
were  extremely  high. 

Upon  further  investigation  I  learned  that  about  six- 
teen years  ago  Vancouver  by  a  mere  act  of  the  City 
Council,  which  the}'  have  the  authority  to  do.  eliminated 
25  per  cent  of  buildings  from  taxation.  In  1906  they 
made  it  50  per  cent,  and  in  1909  75  per  cent.  In  1910  all 
of  the  buildings  and  improvements  together  with  personal 
property  were  exempted  from  taxation  in  the  City  of 
purpose.s  only,  and  that  there  were  two  distinct  sets  of 
machinery  for  collecting  taxes  in  Vancouver  and  other 
British  Columbia  cities.  If  you  should  say  to  a  citizen 
of  Vancouver.  "Your  prosperity  is  due  to  the  system  you 
have  of  collecting  your  taxes."  he  would  be  highly  in- 
sulted. They  claim  their  prosperity  is  due  to  their  ex- 
ceptional resources.  In  part  this  is  true.  British  Co- 
lumbia has  vast  resources,  large  areas  of  yet  undeveloped 
land,  vast  stretches  of  timber  some  of  which  is  the  best 
in  the  world;  great  fishing  industries  and  mineral  wealth. 


Just  now  a  build- 
ing  boom  is   on 


Buildings    exempt- 
ed 


Prosperity   due    to 
great  resources 


86 


SINGLE   TAX    EXPOSED 


A  homestead  title 
in  fee  simple 


Are      not      Single 
Taxers 


Vast    sums    of    R. 
R.  money 


Just  awakening 


Limited  Single  Tax 


Vancouver's     high 
valuation 


Central  Canada  is  a  vast  agricultural  empire  only  par- 
tially developed,  and  in  the  past  few  years  there  has  been 
an  enormous  emigration  not  only  into  Central  Canada, 
but  into  British  Columbia,  because  of  the  great  opportu- 
nities for  free  land — a  homestead,  if  you  please,  with  a 
perfectly  clear  title  such  as  was  given  to  the  homestead- 
ers in  the  United  States.  It  is  to  be  their  land— they  are 
not  to  be  tenants,  as  Single  Tax  advocates  would  have 
them  be. 

The  people  of  Canada  are  not  Single  Taxers  by 
any  means.  They  Avould  not  consider  for  a  moment  the 
repudiation  of  their  contracts.  They  believe  in  pri- 
vate property  in  land.  In  addition  to  the  other  great  re- 
sources of  British  Columbia  which  account  materially  for 
their  commercial  activity  at  this  time  and  the  advance  in 
growth  of  their  cities,  the  Grand  Trunk  Pacific,  Canadian 
Pacific  and  Canadian  Northern  Railways  have  spent  in 
the  past  three  years  over  fifty  millions  of  dollars  in  west- 
ern Canada,  and  contemplate  spending  another  fifty  mil- 
lions by  the  end  of  VJIH.  With  this  vast  amount  of  money 
that  has  been  spent  in  the  past  few  years,  and  antici- 
pating the  additional  expenditure  of  fifty  millions,  all 
of  western  Canada  has  been  stimulated  to  a  very  high 
degree.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that  Canada,  espe- 
cially British  Columbia  and  the  western  provinces,  have 
not  been  developing  while  other  western  states  of  the 
I'jiited  States  have  been.  While  Seattle  and  Portland 
have  been  making  great  strides  in  building  and  popula- 
tion, British  Columbia  cities  have  stood  still.  It  is  now 
their  turn,  and  in  spite  of  this  Single  Tax  fallacy  they 
are  active. 

There  is  one  more  feature,  however,  in  connection 
with  the  growth  of  Vancouver  that  must  not  be  passed 
by  without  notice,  for  it  is  one  of  the  great  factors  in 
its  exceptional  activity.  Vancouver  has  a  population  of 
practically  100.000.  The  assessed  valuation  for  1912  is 
estimated  by  Mv.  Baldwin,  Controller  of  the  City  of  Van- 
couver, at  .$192,000,000.  This  is  a  per  capita  valuation 
of  .$1920.     They  have  a  l)onded  indebtedness  exclusive  of 


VANCOUVER    HAS    NOT    SINGLE   TAX 


87 


local  improvements  of  $21,000,000,  or  $210  for  each  man, 
woman  and  child  in  the  city.  I  was  informed  by  men 
well  posted  that  Vancouver  has  seven  people  for  each 
lot  in  the  city.  This  would  make  a  bonded  indebtedness 
of  something  over  $1400  for  each  lot  in  the  City  of  Van- 
couver. The  Provincial  Government  allows  cities  of  the 
first  class  to  bond  for  20%  of  their  assessed  valuation. 
Vancouver,  being  a  city  of  the  first  class,  has  this  priv- 
ilege. They  have  borrowed  their  20%  up  to  the  limit. 
It  must  also  be  remembered  that  Vancouver  assesses  prac- 
tically the  full  value  of  the  real  estate  in  the  city. 

In  the  past  five  years  they  have,  perhaps,  in  addition  to 
other  sums  as  above  mentioned,  spent  $20,000,000  in  im- 
provements paid  for  by  this  bonded  money.  Or  in  other 
words,  they  have  borrowed  on  forty-year  bonds  at  4% 
this  vast  sum  of  money  for  a  city  of  100,000  people.  Sup- 
pose that  Portland  should  follow  Vancouver's  footsteps 
in  her  fiscal  system,  namely,  to  go  in  debt  as  much  as  her 
values  would  justify  and  the  law  allow,  as  Vancouver  has 
done. 

Portland  has  a  population  of  230,000.  Suppose 
that  her  assessed  valuation  would  follow  the  same  pro- 
portion as  that  of  Vancouver,  namely,  $1920  per  capita, 
which  so  far  as  I  can  see,  she  would  have  a  perfect  right 
to  do,  they  would  have  a  total  valuation  of  $499,000,000. 
The  State  of  Oregon  allows  cities  of  the  first  class  to 
borrow  7%  on  their  valuation  for  general  bonded  indebt- 
edness. This  would  alloM'  an  indebtedness  to  Portland 
of  $34,000,000.  But  suppose  the  State  of  Oregon  allowed 
cities  of  the  first  class  to  borrow  20%,  which  is  the  case 
in  Vancouver,  and  suppose  Portland  faithfully  followed 
up  her  limit,  as  Vancouver  has  done,  instead  of  having 
a  general  bonded  indebtedness  of  $14,000,000,  your  gen- 
eral bonded  indebtedness  would  reach  a  grand  total  of 
$99,800,000. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  Portland,  Salem  or 
any  other  city  on  the  Pacific  Coast  would  far  outstrip 
Vancouver,  B.  C,  if  they  would  be  so  frightfully  indif- 
ferent to  the   consequences  of  indebtedness  as  to  go   in 


Allowed  by  law  to 
borrow  20% 


Up  to  the  limit 


$20,000,000 


Vancouver  vs. 
Portland 


What  a  cry  would 
be  made 


low  it 


88  SIXGLK   TAX    EXPOSED 

ilebt  to  the  extent  of  $99,800,000,  or  on  that  proportion 
to  population,  and  spend  that  money  on  city  improve- 
ments, leaving  the  rising  generation  to  pay  the  obliga- 
You  would  not  al-  tion.  This  excessive  indebtedness  of  Vancouver  and  other 
Canadian  cities,  which  is  pointed  out  to  us  as  a  crite- 
rion of  the  application  of  Single  Tax,  would  not  be  tol- 
erated in  American  cities  of  any  note,  and  it  will  be  the 
ruination  of  those  who  have  adopted  such  a  reckless  and 
indifferent  course. 


TAX  LAWS  OF  BRITISH  COLUMBIA. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  taxes  are  levied  as  follows  in 
the  province  of  British  Columbia,  quoting  from  page  6. 
chapter  53,  "An  act  to  assess,  levy  and  collect  taxes  on 
pi'operty  and  income." 

"Property  subject  to  taxation  :  (1)  All  land, 
personal  property  and  income  of  every  person  in 
the  province,  including  the  land  and  personal 
property  within  the  province  of  non-residents  in 
the  province,  sliall  l)e  liable  to  taxation. 

"(2)  All  mines  and  minerals  shall  be  assessed 
and  taxed. 

"(3)  Every  person  shall  be  assessed  and 
taxed  on  real  property,  personal  property  and  in- 
come, subject  to  the  exemptions  of  this  act" 
(which  relates  to  cemeteries,  etc). 

"The  taxes  on  all  incomes  up  to  $2000  is  1  per 
cent;  from  $2000  to  $3000.  IVi  per  cent;  from 
$3000  to  $4000.  11  2  per  cent,  and  from  $4000  to 
$7000.  2  pel-  cent:  from  $7000  and  over.  2^0  per 
cent." 

"Every  bank  doing  l>usiness  in  this  province 
shall  be  assessed  and  taxed  in  addition  to  the 
foregoing  sul)section  $1000  per  ann\im.  and  $125 
for  each  additional  branch." 

"The  owner  of  every  salmon  cannery  in  addi- 
tion to  the  tax  on  real  property,  personal  prop- 
erty other  than  salmon  and  income,  shall  be 
taxed  at  the  rate  of  two  cents  on  ca'/h  case  of 
salmon  packed  by  him  during  the  year  ending  the 
31st  day  of  Deceml)er.  and  in  addition  to  such 
tax  a   tiix   oF  1    per   cent   on   tlie  total   price   for 


VANCOUVER    HAS    NOT    SlN(;i,E    TAX 


S!) 


which  salmon,  other  than  canned  salmon,  has 
been  sold  by  him  during  said  year." 

"In  addition  to  their  real  estate  and  income 
tax.  every  insurance  company  every  life  insur- 
ance company  every  guarantee  company  loan 
company  and  trust  company,  every  telegrapli. 
telephone  and  express  company,  every  gas  com- 
pany and  every  water  works  company  and  street 
railway  company  is  assessed  and  taxed  upon  its 
gross  revenue  from  all  sources  derived,  arising  or 
accrued  from  business  transacted  in  the  prov- 
ince." 

"If  personal  property  tax  is  greater  tiian  the 
the  income  tax  then  they  collect  from  the  per- 
sonal property,  and  if  the  income  tax  is  greater, 
the  amount  of  tax  on  income  shall  be  the  only 
tax  payable  in  respect  of  both  income  and  per- 
sonal property." 


The  Provincial  Government  of  British  Columbia  pays 
a  very  large  portion  of  Vancouver's  school  expenses. 
which  comes  from  revenue  derived  from  the  various  kinds 
of  taxes  other  than  that  of  land. 

Do  not  allow  Vancouver,  B.  C.  to  enter  into  your 
consideration  as  a  city  trying  out  Single  Tax.  for  such 
is  not  the  case;  they  are  simply  exempting,  as  a  city, 
buildings  and  personal  property,  and  even  that  far  only 
by  resolution  of  City  Council;  there  is  no  such  provision 
in  the  city  charter. 

In  conclusion,  a  word  to  the  wise  is  sufficient.  Let 
Vancouver  and  other  Canadian  cities  continue  their  ex- 
periments, until  they  have  passed  through  a  period  of 
depression,  which  will  surely  follow,  as  has  been  the 
experience  of  Seattle,  Portland,  San  Francisco — in  fact 
all  cities  and  countries ;  then  is  the  time  to  observe  the 
effects.  This  much  boasted  reform  is  not  like  Halley's 
comet — passing  by.  never  to  return.  ^Moderation  is  the 
silver  link  in  the  pearly  chain  of  virtue;  therefore  use 
moderation  in  all  vour  acts. 


Really  no  compar- 
ison 


Test  yet  to  come 


^ 


D 


» 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


URi 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


?  r^TM  " 


SEP  '"^ 


m  2  m  mu 


Mff  RECEIVED 


vCC'X05 


KbC'D  LD-UiiX 


^..  dd 


BLE 


1998 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

UBRAEY 


'  •"■  "  *»ros..  Inc. 

Makers 
Stockton,  Calif 

''"  WN  21.  1908    ' 


Wt^ 


f^gSi- 


tTnivers 
Soutl 
Lib] 


•nJf^ 


